home

Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two

Marc Ash, editor of Truthout, the publication for which Jason Leopold writes, has a detailed new article about what their sources told them regarding Karl Rove's purported Indictment and about activity Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, lawyers for Karl Rove. [Added: Truthout servers are now overloaded, probably due to a link from Drudge. I have temporarily reposted today's article at the bottom of this post.]

I have just gotten off the phone with Karl Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, who provided me with his response to the below quoted portions of the article. (He was at an event making cotton candy with his kids and only saw my email with the quotes, not the entire article.)

First, the Truthout article: Not only is Truthout not backing down, they are flat-out calling Rove spokesman Marc Corallo and Rove Lawyer Robert Luskin's denial false.

Truthout adds a new twist: Rove "may" be cooperating and becoming a witness for Fitzgerald and Cheney may be in Fitzgerald's cross-hairs.

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.

Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.

Now for Mr. Carallo's response:

1. Truthout's claims remain demonstrably false. They are "utter lies. There is not a shred of truth to them."

2. Neither Rove, his lawyer Bob Luskin or Patrick Fitzgerald were at Patton Boggs on Friday or Saturday. There was no meeting and no communication of any kind.

3. Karl Rove has not been indicted. He has not been told he has been indicted. He has not been told he is a target. His status remains unchanged.

4. Those reporting to the contrary are "bald-faced liars or completely delusional or both."

5. There have been no discussions of any deals whatsoever between Fitzgerald's team and Rove's team. Not once in all the years this has been going on.

6. Truthout does not have sources in position to know what they claim they were told. There is no one at Patton Boggs who provided this information. It's laughable. If any sources exist, they have lied to Truthout.

7. Corallo did give Marc Ash's phone number to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. He knew that Kurtz was writing a story about how, in Corallo's words, the mainstream media had to "follow up on the lunacy and these frauds who are passing themselves off as legitimate journalists."

*******
Truthout Article Reprinted (only while their servers are down.]

Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(2 comments)

I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked.

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.

Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.

We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)

more here
Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t

< Duke Lacrosse Case Open Thread: Continued | Soprano's Open Thread: Show 11 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:11:25 PM EST
    "They are 'utter lies. There is not a shred of truth to them.'"
    Maybe so, but I sure remember plenty of statements nearly identifcal to this when the Nixon administration was desperately trying to fend off Watergate investigative reporting.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sydnie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    Rove is paying Corallo good money to spin ... this is how well he earns that fee from his clients ...
    "There has been no talk of resignation. The Republican Conference is solidly behind" the Louisiana Republican."--Mark Corallo - December 17, 1998
    Court TV Article Two days later...
    Bob Livingston bows out of the speakership - He makes a stunning announcement on House floor--December 19, 1998
    CNN Report He SAYS what he's paid to say ... nothing more, nothing less.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    The state's witness story is a much more plausible one than the one they were trying to tell (and golly! it would explain the 15 hours, too!). Though it kind of challenges the 24 hour story. One other detail--if the reports on Armitage are correct (and his camp and a lot of hearing evidence seems to be confirming them), the Leopold's old adamant scoop about Hadley being Mr. X would be demonstrably proven wrong. Not that it matters that much NOW, but it does raise questions about the sources for that story. But as to expanding beyond Plame--Fitzgerald himself has said in recent filings that every time someone requested him to investigate related issues (such as the Niger forgeries), he just referred it to Abu Gonzales.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    Jason Leopold doubles down. He must like his cards. I'll have an opinion as soon as I see them myself.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    Okay, so we have direct and unequivocal claims that the other side is lying (though I suppose Corallo offers the possibility that TO is just "delusional"). TL, have you been in touch with Leopold over the last few days, or has TO decided that only Ash is going to speak publically about this for the time being?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:44:35 PM EST
    Obviously the tigers havnt sniffed the porcine one in their enclosure yet.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:45:24 PM EST
    Yes, I talked to Jason at length Friday night and e-mailed with him Saturday and today.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    Yes, I talked to Jason at length Friday night and e-mailed with him Saturday and today.
    Thanks -- I take it he didn't say anything substantially different than what Ash is reporting then? And thank you again for all of your incredible work on this truly strange incident -- including your excellent original reporting on it!

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    Stakes are pretty damn high. Corallo can get by with these denials, it's Snows disconnect that is the most telling. Corallo may indeed may not be lying, but he took the job knowing that lying could certainly become part of the job.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    As much as I would like to see Karl Rove indicted, I think it's time to take a deep breath here. It would also be worthwhile to read this post by Eric Umansky.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    Thanks, Stu. It's my first time doing interviews with both sides on a current story. Since I'm partisan to criminal defense positions and against the injustices of the Bush Administration, it's been quite a challenge.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    Wow. Fabulous reporting, TalkLeft! Thanks for keeping us abreast of Team Rove's shenanigans. It's pretty obvious why the cowardly lions of the MSM won't touch this one, but I'll bet they're watching it all very, very closely.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#13)
    by jazzcattg1 on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    I, for one, am concerned about Luskins cat.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    Good work, TL! All I know is, when I try to go to Truthout, I get a long wait and then it can't be found. I think I'm getting timed out and that means, a lot of people are following this story. I concur on the conclusion that Rover has flipped. I'd like to see some MSM rep ask Tony Snow, at the next daily dog-and-pony show, whether Karl Rove is employed in some capacity in the WH (or, maybe, on the WH grounds). Just to see him try to waffle around Rover's name. I need some entertainment.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    Truthout's server is overloaded because Drudge and Democratic Underground have linked to the article. If you can't access the article, Sydnie posted it in full in two parts, here and here.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    RePack - Starting to look like a busted flush...

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    Thanks, TL! And, FWIW, did I read your post correctly, that this is Ash's article (as editor), rather than just Jason's as a reporter? Has TO upped their reporter-power devoted to this story?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I know you believe that Leopold is accurately reporting what his sources have told him. I don't have any reason to believe that to be false. But there hasn't been much discussion about why Leopold's sources might give him false info on a Rove indictment knowing he would report it. Could this be part of another classic Rovian scheme? Could he be trying to get the libreral blogs to report on a fake indictment only to later criticize them as being irrelevent and a distraction from the "truth" as reported by the MSM once the indictment reports are shown to be false?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#19)
    by Phoenix6 on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:39:44 PM EST
    Sorry about the last post. I meant to post it to Steve Clemon's TWN site and posted it here accidently. Too many windows open. [TL: No problem, it didn't go through because there's a 3 url limit in comments --I just deleted it, thanks for reading TalkLeft as well as TWN.]

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#20)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:43:42 PM EST
    PPJ: RePack - Starting to look like a busted flush... You mean "Mission Accomplished"? Oh, you mean Mr. Leopold. Well, which bogus prediction (assuming Leopold is mistaken) had the more important consequences, Leopold's regarding Rove, or Bush's regarding the "accomplish[ment]" of the (still undefined) "mission"? If Mr. Bush was as wrong about the mission being accomplished in Iraq as you believe Leopold is about Rove, would you criticize Mr. Bush? I see. Why not?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 04:58:49 PM EST
    jeralyn, can you please comment on the Sealed vs. Sealed case that Judge Reggie Walton presided over? Is this common and what is your best guess on what this is? link thanks.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    There is such a case but there is no way to tell who the parties are. I think this kind of speculation is hurtful to both sides. I give it less weight than a rumor.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#23)
    by unbill on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    Now, I would like to see Rove get indicted as well. But, I will first believe Leopold when it happens or when other, more credible journalists start reporting similarly. I feel bad in saying this, but it may cause big credibility problems for getting involved in another Leopold mistake. Knowing Rove & Co., I wouldn't put them past them that they are baiting a gullible Leopold with a "big story" in order to hurt others - like those in the left-wing blogosphere, who take up Leopold's cause, such as TalkLeft, for instance. At any rate, I wouldn't touch his story with a ten foot pole if I were running a legit blog until someone else comes up with something similar. This isn't to be unfair with Leopold, but I think after his track record, he should lie low for a while longer instead of searching for THE STORY that would revitalize his career in one fell swoop. -unbill

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:43:50 PM EST
    Ms Merritt, This is by far the most informative site on the web for information about this situation. I find myself here at least 3-4 times a day. Please keep up the good work Ma'am!

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dusty on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:04:41 PM EST
    All I know for sure is this: TL is doing a great job and providing a service that can be depended on to inform us and thereby we can form our own conclusions. Thanks :)

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    Actually, according to Madsen's report there were a plural number of "Sealed vs. Sealed" cases on Judge Walton's docket on 5/19. (I'd garbled the judges before). Is it known that only one of them was actually heard? And will there be further such schedulings on the docket? It would seem that could be readily, factually checked out. Of course, there's no way of knowing what "Sealed vs. Sealed" specifically means, but how usual is such a designation and what would be its general implication? It may well have nothing to do with this intrigue, but some other intrigue. Things that make you go "humm"... But let's assume, arguendo, that there is some real factual basis behind Leopold's report, however garbled. Then there would seem to me to be three possible scenarios: 1) Rove and his legal team are, in fact, involved in a negotiation of a plea bargain deal or engaging in such a ploy to buy time. But what is the likelihood that a character such as Rove would actually flip and thereby negate his own life's work? Does anyone know whether Rove has actually been in legal jeopardy before and how he responded? (My recollection is that he was "fired" from the first Bush 1 campaign for having been caught out in a dirty trick and that he testified in the Kay Hutchinson trial, but, inspite of having been trained up by the Nixon gang in the "art" of dirty tricks, I don't recall anything that he hasn't managed to slither out of.) 2) The Rove/WH legal defense team has initiated a counter-offensive, attempting to quash the alleged indictment, by undermining the position of the special prosecutor: the "Saturday night massacre/limited hangout" approach. 3) The administration might be attempting to quash the whole proceeding on "unitary executive/national security" grounds: witness today's mouth-breathings by Abu Gonzalez. My guess about Leopold's report is that his "sources" were third-hand hearsay sources, such that he either garbled the information that he received or the information came to him garbled via the "telephone" effect. But assuming something? occurred, it might not redound to "our" satisfaction. The most useful avenue right now would be to look into Judge Walton and just who he is. My impression so far is that he has been fairly straight, implying in his rulings, against the talking point that these are merely ancillary charges without any underlying crime, that there is, indeed, substantial evidence of an underlying crime. But then how pathetic is it that "we" have to rely on the slow churning of the wheels of "justice" and the dutiful integrity of public officials to counter the depredations of the Busheviks? In the meantime, "we" can go back and dust off our "Buffalo Springfield" albums to provide a soundtrack: "Something is happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear..."

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    I'm finding the entire thing increasingly implausible -- something that I'd like to believe, but don't. There have been too many touches that resemble a television version of federal criminal procedure and prosecutorial strategy than the real thing. Also, if Rove had flipped, I would expect him to be out of the WH. It's likely, though not certain, that Rove's lawyers had joint defense agreements with the lawyers of other witnesses/subjects/targets in Fitz' investigation. That's fairly standard practice in high-level white collar defense. JDAs almost always have provisions requiring the attorneys to withdraw from them, and notify other parties of that withdrawal, immediately when a client decides to cooperate with the government. That would be a signal flare to all the other lawyers party to the hypothetical JDA. It would be hard to keep that quiet. And I can't imagine that WH counsel or the AG or any of Bush's other legal advisors would let him keep a cooperator in the WH privy to anything of significance. Rove's lawyer wouldn't break the JDA's disclosure requirement; he still has to work after this case.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dusty on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:00:43 PM EST
    Who's to say Rover hasn't turned and is wearing a wire ala Randy Cunningham? Its just a thought..about as plausible as what's been going on lately. Rove's attorneys would deny everything in either scenario..

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#29)
    by Phoenix6 on Sun May 21, 2006 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    "JDAs almost always have provisions requiring the attorneys to withdraw from them, and notify other parties of that withdrawal, immediately when a client decides to cooperate with the government. That would be a signal flare to all the other lawyers party to the hypothetical JDA. It would be hard to keep that quiet." Or another party may have sent up a signal flare which in turn caused Rove to react. Reading Ash's comments you get the impression that it was Leopold's report which started some unexpected machinery in motion. Or maybe Rove's team sent up the flare and now there is a bidding war on who gets to be king rat.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sydnie on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:37:28 PM EST
    TL, You might want to give this article a look. Sounds very interesting.
    Libby Prosecutor Focuses on CIA Officer's Status Filings Say Ex-Cheney Aide Knew That Plame Was Classified, Giving Him Reason to Lie to Grand Jury
    Walter Pincus

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 10:48:50 PM EST
    Heeheehe this is too funny. Jason thought he caught a nice size fish and it has turned into a friggin monster shark. Good for him. Another thing that is hilarious is the way the other blogs have handled this story. I think Jason and Marc have got something here that is big and I'm peeing my pants in anticipation of all the BS the clic blogs will eventually spew if this story pans out and they finally decide its safe to jump on board. I see some have already made their way over. Thanks again for covering this story. You have been very fair to all. If a person were to read between the lines on the first story and didn't take every piece of information literally this most recent update would be pretty much what you would expect.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 21, 2006 at 11:13:05 PM EST
    Also, if Rove had flipped, I would expect him to be out of the WH I'm wondering two things, Ex Fed: 1. Why you think Rove has a JDA? I have trouble imagining him tying his fate to anybody's elses. Is it that unlikely that he wouldn't have them? 2. Why that would mean he would leave the White House? I have a hard time believing that Bush would choose Cheney over Rove.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#33)
    by Kevin Hayden on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:00:39 AM EST
    A fine bit of sleuthing, Jeralyn. My instincts suggest there's a backstory to this all. Fitzgerald could be undercutting leakers, Rove's team could be dancing him away from the guillotine moments before it's loosed, or....? That Truthout's being so adamant with its cred on the line makes it - imho - likely that there's more mischief afoot than we can define. Sure, we must wait for the evidence to emerge. Yet when the full backstory's told, I suspect Truthout will be largely vindicated, despite Leopold's prior errors. In the meantime, instinct is worthless.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:12:02 AM EST
    From Howard Kurtz:
    As the phone inquiries continued through that Saturday night, Luskin says, "some of the reporters felt somewhat demeaned by having to call. It's the editors saying to them, 'I don't care what you think; call up and get some kind of response.'
    Nice to know that they have such high professional standards. And they make fun of bloggers?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:35:51 AM EST
    I'm wondering two things, Ex Fed: 1. Why you think Rove has a JDA? I have trouble imagining him tying his fate to anybody's elses. Is it that unlikely that he wouldn't have them?
    A JDA is just a tool for information-sharing; it doesn't have to tie anyone's fate. "Joint defense" is something of a misnomer; a better term might be "joint information sharing agreement." Typically they simply allow attorneys to exchange information without waiving any privileged or work product data therein. In my experience, JDAs are increasingly common in white collar matters. Of course, the political elements of this case may have led the attorneys to avoid it.
    2. Why that would mean he would leave the White House? I have a hard time believing that Bush would choose Cheney over Rove.
    I think it unlikely that a cooperating Rove would return to the WH for a variety of reasons. First, it would give Fitz all sorts of problems. Lots of key players are represented by counsel in connection with Fitz' investigation; there would be a real danger of the appearance of contacting represented parties through an agent (Rove). On the WH side, once they know that Rove is cooperating, it would be foolhardy to keep him around when his self-interest might dictate that he reveal anything interesting to Fitz. It would be a security-clearance disaster. Of course this admin has a somewhat flexible view of security issues.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:41:47 AM EST
    Some basic assumptions I'm trying to keep in mind: -The President's and Congressional Republicans' approval ratings remain in freefall with less than six months to go before the November elections. - The WH is already in campaign mode for November '06 (Bush & Cheney fund-raising frenetically below the radar, trying to shore up formerly safe Republican incumbents all over the country). - Karl Rove is W's most trusted and valued acolyte, and considered indispensable if disaster is to be averted in November. - Cheney and W were never personally close, and given the fix W is in with the voters, he may want to be rid of Cheney whom it would be convenient to blame for his travails, given the unprecedented amount of power and decision-making authority the VP has arrogated to himself since taking office. - Republican elders may have already read W the riot act and ordered him to get rid of Cheney (the way they told Nixon it was time to step down -- as these people are associates of the elder Bush, they probably don't have the power to tell the son to resign). - The game that may be going on now could be a complex tug of war between Libby (Team Cheney) and Rove (Team W) to try to save W's presidency, with Fitz in the middle, watching and waiting, and whenever possible, playing them both for his own (and the American people's) purposes. - The stakes, not only for the WH and the Republican Party, but for the country, the rule of law and the future of democracy, could not be higher. - Leopold may have located the tip of the iceberg. Let's hope by the time the rest of the press figure it out, the good ship America won't have already crashed into it.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:35:04 AM EST
    When Rove appeared before the GJ for the fifth time on April 26th, MSM was saying that they expected an announcement, but not before 10 days from that date. David Shuster of NBC, who would presumably have good or more reliable sources than Leopold also went on record and stated that he believed an indictment was forthcoming -- and within the same general timeframe that Leopold had stated. Wishful thinking on their part? Unreliable sources? A sting operation? I don't know. I'm not a journalist, but: It is now almost a month and there has been no announcement that Rove is in the clear. So while others are focusing on "where's the indictment if Leopold was right?" I think the absence of being cleared and the fact that the GJ hasn't been dismissed make it more likely that something big is still coming down the pike.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:59:08 AM EST
    Dissent: something big is still coming down the pike I think that these two statements by Marc Ash are the most telling of everything he had to say yesterday:
    We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all


    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:15:34 AM EST
    Marc Ash says that he and his reporter and their publication are now only speculating that Rove might be flipping to drop some dimes. The very formidable empywheel speculates alike. And I myself speculated the same, as did possibly a couple of million other people. But that does not answer the questions raised about truthout's report, nor the huffy defensive posture they took when pressed on the details. If all that we're doing is speculating and waiting, then why did they insist that they had a definitive exclusive story? And why did the editor scream bloody murder and say "we were right Friday, Saturday, Sunday, today and forever..." Right about what? About speculating? Well then, I guess I had THAT particular "scoop" long before they did, and so did countless other people. But of course that means nothing, as far as news reporting goes. If your speculation turns out to be right, that either makes you very smart or very lucky. But it doesn't support any news story that was written and edited the way that one was. They should've just said that, based on their reporting, they could not be totally certain but were comfortable in speculating about how it would all play out. That might have been acceptable. But their egos got the better of them.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:17:47 AM EST
    TL, I am a Plame thread addict. What ever the truth, I appreciate you front paging this story. It disappoints me that the other bloggers are ignoring it, in the name of liberal scepticism. It appears that something is going on. Just not sure what it is. Thank's for providing the space for the ongoing discussion.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:20:08 AM EST
    And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all Where is Truthout getting that from? Has anybody seen examples of Tony Snow refusing to discuss Karl Rove? If they mean Snow (now) refuses to discuss Karl Rove's status in the Plame case, I get it, but why "now"? -- Scott McClellan refused to discuss Rove's status for six months, and Snow is just continuing the policy. What's the rationale for holding it up as some a sign of imminent things to come? If they mean Snow is refusing to discuss Karl Rove, period, I'm confused. As recently as Wednesday's press briefing, Snow was trotting out Karl Rove's meeting with House Republicans on immigration. Rove was very visible last week, and Snow made a point of noting it. Am I missing something? [p.s. I see my last comment was deleted. Sorry for that, TL. I'm still new to the comments, and just getting used to protocol. I'll try to stay on topic.]

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    freakedoutneighbor offers some very reasonable and educated speculation in his/her latest entry. I'd be inclined to bet that he/she is right on at least a few of the main points, especially about Fitz wisely playing both sides against each other to see what he can get from both of them. But he/she did not offer that up as an exclusive scoop, and neither have any of the many other posters on this fine site, or other sites. Yet, truthout did make such a bold claim. Those of us still interested in insisting on some standards for reporting, by allies and foes alike, do care a good deal about that distinction.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:49:49 AM EST
    Right about what? About speculating?
    TO made an unequivocal claim that Rove was indicted. No speculation. They now claim to have a third source confirming the report. We'll see.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:18:37 AM EST
    Is there any conceivable scenario under which Rove could be co-operating with the prosecutor while continuing to work at the White House?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:20:16 AM EST
    I'd say it's unlikely but I could imagine it's possible if it's part of a wider team offensive, White House vs. Cheney House.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    w0551 - Good questions. I think the point Ash was making is that there is some meaning behind the combination of no retraction being asked for and the continuing refusal of the WH, through the Press Secretary, refusing to discuss Rove in relation to Fitzgeralds investigation. I think the WH has not asked for a retraction from Truthout because they would leave themselves open to having to substantiate their claims that lLeopold and Truthout are lying.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    Edger Good points, but that combination (no call for retraction + no comment on case) has been in place for months. The White House didn't ask for retractions on any of Leopold's other stories that didn't pan out. They don't work that way. I think your point that the WH doesn't want to be put in a position to substantiate anything is well taken. But I don't take it as a sign of something big coming down the line imminently. It's status quo. There is one line of thinking, though, that has me hoping something big may come. Here's a comment from rwcole over at FDL that got me speculatory juices flowing.
    So what the hell IS going on with Rover? 1) Fitz doesn't have enough to ask for an indictment? low probability 2) Fitz is waiting to get more of the Libby evidentiary stuff decided before opening another can of worms? Moderate probability 3) Fitz is still trying to squeeze a plea deal out of Rover? Low probability 4) Fitz is actually going after a small herd of goopers and wants to get em all at once? Most interesting possibility.


    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    w0551: Fitz is actually going after a small herd of goopers and wants to get em all at once? Last time I was on a merry go round I was just a little kid and that brass ring was always just slightly out of reach for me. But I wasn't nearly as tall then as Fitz is now. ;-)

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    We may yet have that ring, edger. Wait and see, I guess. ABC's The Note -- not always the most reliable source but worth an eyebrow -- has this to say today:
    A Note Notebook to the first person who can tell us why Karl Rove was at O'Hare last Friday afternoon around 6pm ET. Karl Rove and members of his staff are not eligible.
    Um, what was that again?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Mon May 22, 2006 at 11:54:52 AM EST
    O'Hare? O'Hare? Someone pulled him out of his rabbit hole? Or was that a spider hole?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    w0551-O'Hare? hmmm. His double? you sure know how to complicate things don't you?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    Squeaky - Marc Ash: "We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)" Unequivocal? Or, equivocating? The versions are getting confusing. I would've thought that unequivocal meant what you "know" is provable, not what you "believe." Otherwise, we might be discussing whether a splotch of peanut butter is the virgin mary's sublime countenance. Or not. If what they believe turns out to be correct, so be it, and they will duly take the credit. But it would be for what they believed, not what they initially avowed that they "knew" to be true. (And, if I believe it, would I get credit too?) So it sounds like they're taking a gamble, maybe a good educated guess, and fine for them - now that they finally admit that's what they're doing. I think that's all that some of us wanted to hear, at long last. BTW: I do sincerely hope that it is true.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    Squeaky: w0551-O'Hare? hmmm. His double?... you sure know how to complicate things don't you? Office of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald 219 South Dearborn Street Fifth Floor Chicago Illinois

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    In the comments over at FDL -- sorry I've been double-dipping -- they're saying Rove was apparently at a fundraiser in suburban Chicago... I guess I should come back to reality here. Don't mean to start another round of wild speculation after we've just (kind of) finished the last one.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13.
    Knowing and believing are in this case worth distinguishing. It is true that TO has to believe its sources in order to claim they know something. So in a way they do equivocate.
    Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks.
    Seems standard news writing practice to say: we know this or that based on several trusted sources. But Ash's distinctions are not all that confusing unless you are getting philosophical here. How else would you have him contrast his report and his analysis or speculation on the report?

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:32:27 PM EST
    ABC News WASHINGTON, May 22 A Note Notebook to the first person who can tell us why Karl Rove was at O'Hare last Friday afternoon around 6pm ET Chicago Tribune May 20, 2006
    Karl Rove, chief architect of President Bush's presidential campaigns, attended a Republican fundraiser Friday night in Lake County to help rally support for 8th District congressional candidate David McSweeney and other Republicans on the November ballot.


    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon May 22, 2006 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    w0551- thanks for stanching that story. Glad it only lasted a few minutes as it could of turned into a new plamegate tributary. Looks like 'the note' is clearly playing some games here.... not surprised.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    Didn't Carallo question the professionalism, truthfulness and credibility of a reporter at a certain news organization recently? Funny... but I thought these reports about Rove had no substance unless they were reported by the MSM.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    I agree. Poor behavior at The Note. Deliberately putting out a mysteriously worded report that is almost certain to provoke a Rove rumor? It feels to me like a prank, as if they're laughing at us. Not amused.

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Mon May 22, 2006 at 01:23:42 PM EST
    They are part, I think, of the effort to manipulate blogs into looking foolish, so they can say "just look at all the rumors flying around the blogosphere" about rove since Leopolds articles......

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon May 22, 2006 at 03:15:21 PM EST
    MSNBC's David Shuster declared Monday evening that Karl Rove's legal team expects Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to announce a decision "at any time" in the ongoing CIA leak investigation and that new documents put Cheney's former chief of staff in the hot seat.
    "at any time"- that seems safe, even if it does imply 'yesterday'. Raw Story via atrios

    Re: Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimcee on Mon May 22, 2006 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    Hey, I thought that Truthout mischaracterized that this was imminent ten days or so ago? the word imminent is a bit more flexible than I had thought. Eventual, perhaps but I can't imagine that his source is that reliable if the rest of the restive media hasn't jumped on board. This is starting to look more like wishful thinking than an honest-to-goodness well, truthout. We'll see if Rove gets indicted but don't get your hopes up too high lest they fall from too high a place.