home

Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources

Truthout seems to be using Sealed Case 128 to justify not revealing Jason Leopold's sources for his May 13 article reporting Karl Rove had been indicted.

Yes, there has been a sealed case 06cr00128 styled Sealed v. Sealed on the District Court's docket (available through Pacer) since it was filed on May 17. It says "no further information is available" or something like that. It is still sealed, I've checked several times since then. If my handwritten notes are correct, it's the only District Court criminal case filed between May 9 (case 122) and May 18 (case 131) that remains sealed.

But, I can't agree with Truthout that sealed case 128 may validate Jason's article and therefore justify not disclosing the sources who told them Rove had been indicted. Note, I said Truthout, not Jason. Jason was on Ed Schultz today (you can listen here) and made it clear that it is no longer his decision but his publisher's (Truthout) whether to out his sources as he once promised he would do if the May 13 article proved false.

So will Leopold out his sources now? Ed Schultz asked Leopold that question on his radio show this afternoon. Leopold said no. "This is a team effort, and I am not the only one working this," he said. "This is an effort by Truthout." Schultz cut Leopold off, saying that he and Truthout "may have some tough integrity and credibility issues down the road." "Yeah," Leopold said, "and we're actually working on that." Schultz asked Leopold why he'd want to protect his sources at this point. Leopold's response: "That's an excellent question. I've got to be honest, Ed. I don't have an answer at this moment."

It doesn't matter if the sealed indictment in case 128 is for Dick Cheney (and I'm not implying it is) or anyone else connected to the Plame investigation. Jason's article of May 13 said Karl Rove had been indicted. I agree with Tim Grieves who writes today:

The Truthout headline on Leopold's May 13, 2006, story said: "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice." If Rove really was indicted sometime before May 13, 2006, even if something happened in the ensuing weeks to turn that indictment into a nonindictment, then the central premise of Leopold's story may not have been wrong. But if Karl Rove was never indicted in the first place, even if Fitzgerald planned to indict Rove before something changed his mind, then Leopold's report was wrong --"particularly wrong" -- no matter what may have happened in the meantime.

Jason and Truthout may be correct that case 128 pertains to the Valerie Plame investigation. And maybe not. The grand jury hears lots of cases from multiple investigations. This grand jury is not limited to the Plame investigation.

Bottom line: Truthout's Marc Ash is calling the shots now, not Jason. There could be costly legal ramifications to wrongly outing sources. I don't blame Marc Ash for wanting to be sure.

But Jason's article was specific about an Indictment of Karl Rove, not someone else, a meeting lasting into the wee hours at Patton Boggs, the Indictment being shown to Rove and Rove being given an ultimatum for a deal. If there never has been a Rove indictment, sealed case 128 is irrelevant to Jason's article. Jason's sources were wrong and should be outed.

Tim Grieves asks whether Ash and Leopold didn't confuse 128 with a different case, such as 06mc128, relating to Time Magazine's challenge of a subpoena in the Libby case. I don't think so. 06cr128 clearly a criminal case separate from the Time "mc" case. There's also a civil case with the number 128, 06cv128. Courts don't make those kind of designation errors and if they did, they'd correct it immediately and there would be no 06cr128 still on Pacer.

A note as to my research: When Jason first wrote Rove had been indicted, I methodically searched all of the cases that week on Pacer. As cases were unsealed, I read all the Government's motions to seal and unseal and the rest of the pleadings.

In addition to the sealed District Court case (128) there were also three magistrates' cases that were sealed that week. I checked those thinking that someone in Plamegate might have a deal to plead to a misdemeanor Information (rather than an Indictment) which could keep it out of District Court. There were a few that week between case numbers 208 and 213. As of yesterday, only case 212 appears to still be sealed.

So there remain two sealed cases, one in District Court and one in Magistrate court that could be for Joe Schmo or for someone connected to PlameGate.

Unless Case 128 was a Rove indictment that for some reason Fitz later moved to dismiss, which seems very unlikely given Fitzgerald's statement to Luskin that he doesn't anticipate charges to be brought and Luskin's unequivocal statement that there have been no deals or agreements, I think Jason's sources have now been proven wrong.

Fitzgerald's refusal to comment on Luskin's statements today that Rove will not be charged leads me to believe Luskin is telling the truth. I believe Fitzgerald would correct the record if it were not true.

As to secret deals or "gentlemen's agreements" between Karl Rove and Fitzgerald, I don't see it. If there was any kind of deal to dismiss an Indictment, and Rove was going to be a cooperating witness against him, Libby's lawyers would have to be told and Luskin would be a fool for publicly asserting otherwise.

One more item: As to Karl Rove's cooperation. I believe (as I've written many times) that he began cooperating in early 2004 with the Hadley e-mail, and has been cooperating ever since, providing whatever information Fitzgerald wanted about anyone connected to the leaks investigation. I think he really amped it up in October, 2005, before the Libby indictment. He may well have put the final nail in someone else's coffin. But, Fitzgerald and his lawyer were smart enough not to make the cooperation a quid pro quo -- so that Rove can continue to claim he cooperated as a civic duty, not for any personal gain. As I wrote here, that pretty much makes Rove an unimpeachable witness against Libby or whomever Fitz goes after next.

As to why Fitz would only say he doesn't anticipate indicting Rove rather than saying Rove has been cleared and never will be indicted, consider this. What if he publicly cleared him and Rove then testified for Libby's defense team and said something different than he told the grand jury? Fitz needs to remain free to charge Rove in that event. Also, if the investigation is continuing, new information could develop, particularly if Fitz continues to turn putative defendants. One might convince him Rove lied. Both of these situations are unlikely to occur, but Fitz needs to protect his ability to act against Rove if they did happen. That's what lawyers do, they try to cover all the bases.

Additional item: Why did all this come out today? I suspect it's because there was a hearing in the Libby case yesterday and Karl Rove's status came up. Fitz has refused to disclose information on Rove because the investigation was continuing. The Judge has set a January trial date and doesn't want a continuance.

I discussed much of this tonight with Sam Sedar on Air America Radio. Sam is a great host, he knows just what questions to ask. Don't forget to get his book, FUBAR.

I'll end where I began, with Jason, Truthout and Case 128. Based on what we know now, I think it's fair to say case 128 was not an Indictment of Karl Rove. Which means, Jason's sources were wrong. Truthout should authorize Jason to disclose their identify.

Update: Maybe I was too harsh on Truthout. As a compromise to outing their sources, if their sources in good faith relayed information they received from people they believed credible, Truthout should consider just retracting Jason's article based on Luskin's statement which has not been contradicted by Fitzgerald, and say they are retracting it because current information indicates it was wrong. They could also say they are not outing their sources because they are convinced their sources did not lie to them but may have received inaccurate information. If the sources didn't lie, but merely were wrong, perhaps Truthout is right not to out them. What is the journalistic code of ethics on this? Thoughts?

< EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove | Duke Lacrosse Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#1)
    by Tom Maguire on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:32:20 PM EST
    Off topic, yet not - Richard Armitage will be on Charlie Rose tonight in about 90 minutes (for my NYC outlet, anyway). is this: (a) an extraordinary coincidence? (b) a concession by Fitzgerald allowing Armitge to announce his own indictment in a friendly setting? (c) a chance for Armitage to doa mea culpa, clear up his role, and announce that he is in the clear (the status question for Rove surely relates here as well)? I bet... (c), but without conviction.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rational on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:36:31 PM EST
    Using Occams razor I wonder... Is it possible that bush gave rove a "secret" preemptory pardon under some manufactored clause concerning National Security of one of the unpatriot acts? This would explain why no one has seen anything in writing, why Fitzgerald hasn't said anything and assuming that he waited until an indictment was either under seal or ready to go it would not inherently contradict all of Leopalds story. I admit that I have no evidence on this and that i created completely out of my consideration of what I know of this case. But, ego aside, it would seem to be the simplest explanation for all the known facts.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:45:04 PM EST
    Is it possible, as CitizenSpook suggests, that Sealed vs. Sealed is the product of a runaway grand jury?

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:55:56 PM EST
    Unless Case 128 was a Rove indictment that for some reason Fitz later moved to dismiss, which seems very unlikely given Fitzgerald's statement to Luskin that he doesn't anticipate charges to be brought and Luskin's unequivocal statement that there have been no deals or agreements, I think Jason's sources have now been proven wrong. Well a diarist over at Kos, the diarist that seemingly outed Armando when Armando apparently cried bunk over what the diary contains, claimed in http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/21/184052/881 That sealed vs. sealed represents Abu Gonzales coming to court to quash Fitzgerald's indictment. IIRC Apparently this coincides with various sightings of Gonzales that day. Up until today's diary about how and why Armando was outed, I would have enjoyed the above diary as telling me something dark and sinister about how Rove got off. Now I will just point to it and say that evidently Mr. Jiggflunknut (his name for himself) has a few ethical cards missing from his deck. But it is a fun and scary theory that explains the facts as we see them today: Rove guilty as all hell walks. The theory first came from Wayne Madsen and Chris Matthews (!). I don't know how jerkwad Matthews gets into this, but maybe it is better sourced than the rest of that creeps material.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    I'm wondering how much has actually changed. I doubt that Fitzgerald would set the record straight if Luskin misrepresented what was said in the letter - I don't know how that would play to Fitzgerald's long term advantage. I have not heard the word "exonerated" and until I do, I"m going to remain skeptical as to Rove's future as a free man.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:23:52 PM EST
    Lorelynn: I have not heard the word "exonerated" and until I do, I"m going to remain skeptical as to Rove's future as a free man. That pretty much expresses my thoughts too, Lorelynn, especially since Fitz only said he didn't anticipate rather than will never charge rove. And I agree with Leopold that there are too many unanswered questions. Something is very fishy here...

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:40:53 PM EST
    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:00:39 PM EST
    Prozac: Seth Abramson's speculation, based on legal experience though it is, is still speculation. It is no more a valid speculation corresponding to reality than any other, such as for example, speculation that rove is a upstanding respectable honest and innocent man. Ahem...

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#9)
    by unbill on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:05:27 PM EST
    I'm a journalist and I have to say that if Leopold has sources, and that if he wanted to name them, then his editor can really do nothing about it, except maybe fire him afterwards. At the same time, no journalist should ever reveal his sources at all, and moreover not just because they burned him. With a big story like Leopold's either it was an organized burning, or Leopold is making it all up. Leopold has to come clean no matter what, but that should not include his naming his sources. He should just say that he made a huge mistake and believed a number of sources who lied to him. That's it. Of course, if he is making it all up, I hope he comes clean as well. In both cases, though, I will have trouble believing what is written under his name. Maybe investigative journalism is not for him. It's certainly not for me - but there are a number of rewarding fields in the journalism industry, maybe Leopold should choose something less risky. At any rate, this whole situation makes me think more than ever - if a big story doesn't reach the best of the mainstream media, then it may be just hot air and shoddy journalism.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:06:08 PM EST
    Well, yeah, of course it is speculation. No one has access to Fritz' brain. (A little pun there.) We shall see. What was most important to Rove though was to keep as much as possible under wraps until after November, and in that, it seems he succeeded. But that's just speculation.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:11:35 PM EST
    unbill, I think it was an it was an organized burning, like with Dan Rather. Remember, we are dealing with Karl Rove.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:12:20 PM EST
    What does he do after November? Hide? Leave town quietly after sundown? Flee the country? Argentina is warm at that time of year I hear. One could speculate forever here. ;-)

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#13)
    by fireback on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:17:44 PM EST
    TL, I humbly don't agree with a few of your comments regarding Leopold et al should out their source. Consider these comments that have always jumped out at me. This is from Marc Ashe's statement after yesterday's Leopold article. "We believe that if any of the key facts that we have reported were materially false or inaccurate some statement to that effect would be forthcoming from Fitzgerald's staff. That is based on the same single credible source." I believe he is telling us his source is within Fitz's staff - maybe someone who has knowledge, but not a lawyer. If I am correct, I don't believe they should out someone who was wrong on some detail but intended to provide helpful info. There's is a big difference in an inaccuracy and an attempt to mislead. The later of which I would agree should cause them to reveal. I don't believe that is the case here. As I have said all along, the value that the smaller news organizations bring is a willingness to provide any information they get. It's our job to consider the potential inaccuracies that "single sources" to smaller news organizations bring. They have less to lose than the MSM when wrong, but they still may provide some important facts the MSM may be unwilling to take a chance on. If Leopold's source was, for example, a legal secretary working for Fitz, I think it's important news and an individual he could fairly call "in a position to know." To ask for the outing of someone like that, to me hurts the value these organizations bring. Do you throw out the Bible if you don't believe the earth was created in 7 days?

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:19:06 PM EST
    Unbill, I may partially agree with you. Having spent the last hour talking to an investigative journalist on the phone (not Jason) I was told that the issue is good faith, and that if Jason's sources didn't lie to Jason but received information they in good faith believed and passed it on to Jason in good faith, then Jason shouldn't out his sources. So there could be some kind of legal jeopardy for Truthout if they out sources who were being truthful with them but happened to receive inaccurate information. Does that sound right to you?

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:23:15 PM EST
    Jeralyn, thanks for your response on the other thread. I believe that your highlighting of this portion of the current thread:
    As to why Fitz would only say he doesn't anticipate indicting Rove rather than saying Rove has been cleared and never will be indicted, consider this. What if he publicly cleared him and Rove then testified for Libby's defense team and said something different than he told the grand jury? Fitz needs to remain free to charge Rove in that event. Also, if the investigation is continuing, new information could develop, particularly if Fitz continues to turn putative defendants. One might convince him Rove lied. Both of these situations are unlikely to occur, but Fitz needs to protect his ability to act against Rove if they did happen. That's what lawyers do, they try to cover all the bases.
    sorta answers my question, but not fully. I truly wanted to know if that were usual parlance in excusing a "suspect" or is that what it seems to imply...a parlance used when you're planning on using the previously "suspect" person as a witness or you expect the defense to do so. I completely understood the "why" of it, but not the common nature of the phrasing. I'm gathering from your response that Fitz plans on putting Rove on the stand or he believes that Libby's attorneys will do so. And that would be the point I'm headed towards. Fitz is keeping Rove and his attorney aware of his short leash rather than completely waiving him of any potential problems in the future. Is that common if you believe the "suspect" is absolutely innocent or you are unable to prove his guilt OR is it something you would say based on either the prosecution or the defense requiring Rove to testify? One last phrasing, is that the blanket phrase used to release a "suspect?" Man, I'm so trying to make sense at this late hour and fear like I'm sounding like an idiot. :D

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#16)
    by fireback on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:24:58 PM EST
    Hmmmm. Ok, probably not the best analogy.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:26:32 PM EST
    if Jason's sources didn't lie to Jason but received information they in good faith believed and passed it on to Jason in good faith Good point. I've thought before that Jason could have been lied to, or that his sources themselves could have been lied to. It could even go more than two levels deep. If his sources are ones that have previously been reliable for him, they may have been passed info by someone who themselves thought they were passing truthful info... and so on...

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:27:24 PM EST
    The ideal and the most effective solution would be for the source to out him- herself. Source: "This is what was happening then, this is what changed and why." Unless, of course, it was an organized burn.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:31:27 PM EST
    Unless, of course, it was an organized burn. We are dealing with karl rove here.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:35:07 PM EST
    edger, that's revealing: the man is a psychopath.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:36:00 PM EST
    Prozac, yep.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:42:00 PM EST
    Hey Edger! I conjectured, way back to the last time when we met, what if the Rove team suspected a leak in their organization and decided to feed them bad info to see if it would play out. This would accomplish two things. They could out their leak internally and totally trash a reporter who had developed this source. That being said, doesn't mean I give Leopold any credance. This has gotten way too weird. But, it's a damn good "what if" knowing Rove's MO and just having fun playing parlor games.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#23)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:42:20 PM EST
    In the end Fitzgerald may have felt that he just couldn't get a conviction. Or Rove, in his many visits, may have rolled. It's hard to believe such a true believer would give up someone higher up, but maybe he did. Or maybe Luskin just put lipstick on the pig that is his client.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#24)
    by unbill on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:44:09 PM EST
    I personally take a more radical approach to sources, but then I am not an investigative journalist. The people at TruthOut have a lot on their hands as it is without stirring up more. Sure, if they want a fight, then they could reveal their sources. It would probably get really ugly, though, and completely destroy Ash's and Leopold's careers. Plus, it seems as if anything would probably be very difficult to prove in court, especially since Leopold has had problems before. Journalism is like law or politics, sometimes one has to duck and retreat even if one has a powerful argument (i.e. the sources did not act in good faith). Knowing what I have read on the issue, TruthOut should retract the story as quicktly as possible, issue a short statement and regroup. Live to fight another day, sotospeak.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 08:53:38 PM EST
    SharonW, wow. Now there's a possibility that would fit rove's machiavellian style perfectly. Remember when rove threatened to blacklist GOP senators back in February if they opposed Bush on the NSA warrantless surveillance?

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#26)
    by ltgesq on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:00:59 PM EST
    attorney says " the prosecutor has told me that they do not anticipate bringing charges at this time" this is not confirmed or denied by the prosecutor. So, why is luskin's unsubstatiated statement deemed true, and the story in truthout deemed false? Has fitz endoresed either? No. When luskin releases the letter, then i will beleive it. I am sure they don't have an "agreement." My guess is that there was a proffer of what testimony rove would supply in any future hearings against libby or others, and fisk said if rove testifies as he indicated, then we don't anticipate charging him. Perhaps, there was an indictment filed and withdrawn, or it could be that there is an agreement to waive the statute of limitations as to rove, and that is what has been filed. It isn't unusual in a case that drags on for a while for prosecutors to file actions and name parties as john does in order to lock in the statute of limitations.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:03:27 PM EST
    Okay, Edger, just to drive everyone totally nuts, it appears that Wilson said to Empty Wheel at Yearly Kos that he knew a reputable journalist who was told the same thing Leopold was, but this reporter only had one source and couldn't go forward with the story on that basis. Leopold said the exact same thing when he was under the last bit of public scrutiny...that other reporters had the same story and he had been expecting them to break with it at any moment, but it turned out they had only one source and couldn't go foward with it on that basis. Caveat again, lest anyone jump on me for believing Leopold straight up. I don't, but I haven't entirely dimissed the possibility of a screw-up or set-up.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:07:36 PM EST
    The only facts we have to deal with are that there are few facts to sink your teeth into, except rove's past behaviour... and willingness to set up or screw anyone who gets in his way.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:09:21 PM EST
    ...but rove's innocent till proven guilty. Me too... ahem.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 09:26:55 PM EST
    ...but rove's innocent till proven guilty. Me too... ahem. Aren't we all? I, for one, certainly didn't conspired to commit any nasty typos nor did I purposefully commit any illegal offenses that would have resulted in grammatically incorrect sentences tonight. ;) Nightie, night.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:18:14 PM EST
    What a cop-out, his publisher now decides when his source(s) will be revealed. Leopold's prediction didn't come true & now he is bailing out on his promises & revealing his journalistic integrity for what it is, total BS. There is no proof, there is no indictment of Rove & the only person indicted so far, has been indicted for lying about a crime that hasn't even been proven to have been committed. Yet most here consider Rove guilty... once again w/o proof. What is more likely... Leopold Maples has a legitimate source or that his article really just revolves around another memo generated from a Kinko's in Texas - whose information followed the lines of belief Leopold already held beforehand? Since there haven't been any indictments & Rove waived the 5th during all of his 5 appearances, explain to me how he is as guilty as you all assume. The simply truth is he isn't guilty; there was no crime & you all drinking a little too deeply from the kool-aid. This is yet another partisan trolling expedition based upon conjecture & nothing more. I'm amazed that so many supposedly rational adults are continuing on yet another conspiracy theory & are so convinced that they are right w/o any proof. Call me what you will, but isn't a little more reasonable to believe that Joe Wilson lied then for it all to be the product of some petty Executive Office based attacked? Wilson never signed a non-discloser agreement w/ the CIA & doesn't have to worry about being prosecuted; he has merely fed those on the left enough meat to cause some political damage & nothing more. Its silly politics & most of you are being used to weaken the opposition.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 12:24:00 AM EST
    In politics (left or right) there are no honest mistakes. I think Kerry ought to be careful about saying he was misled. It gives Bush the same opening. Then where are you? Bad intel is no where near as good as Bush = evil. I always assume the most venal and power hungry motives for all actions on politicians of the left and right. In the vast majority of the cases I am not disappointed. As to what Truth Out should do? Who knows? As to what they will do? What ever gives the minimum of trouble and the maximum of advantage. Semper Fi and Duty, Honor, Country is for the stupid who join the military. For those who couldn't make it on a McJob. We are having none of that around here. The only way to get honesty in politics is to demand it from the side you support. The other guys will not be listening. I also note that DeLay is out and Jefferson is still in. This is not good. For the Democrats or America.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 01:43:22 AM EST
    explain to me how he is as guilty as you all assume. The simply truth is he isn't guilty; there was no crime & you all drinking a little too deeply from the kool-aid. Neither is OJ....

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#34)
    by annburns on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 02:35:39 AM EST
    I don't believe a word that truthout says about this case. They've been wrong before and they are still wrong. I wouldn't give credence to anything Leopold said. I think what happened with Rove is simple. I never bought the argument that Fitzgerald was aggressively going after this administration. After all, he is part of the administration, a Bush appointee whose boss is Alberto Gonzales. Plus he saw what happened to his good buddy Comey when he got cross-wise with these guys. Dems were foolish to believe Fitzgerald could do a independent and aggressive investigation into his own chain of command. When you step back and look at what Fitzgerald did: 1. Drop any investigation into the original charges. 2. Sit on a mountain of evidence that showed the WH and the OVP were deeply involved in outing Plame. 3. Only indict one person and that only after he was stupid enough to lie repeatedly to the gj and FBI. 4. Allow the timing to work out to the benefit of the Bush administration. Libby's indictment after the election. Rove cleared before the midterms. 5. State that you will not issue a report, so the full extent of the investigation will always remain hidden. 6. And Jonathan Turley said Fitzgerald has been 'extraordinarily deferential' to Rove in allowing him to change his grand jury testimony. Most prosecutors would of indicted Rove the first time he lied. Once again, Dems believed that the justice system would provide them with a fair shake. That it would not be used or perverted by the powerful against the weak. That was stupid. Right now, I would bet Fitzgerald is praying the Republicans hold on to Congress in the fall. That way no one will ever know how complicit he was in covering up their crimes.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#35)
    by roxtar on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:11:27 AM EST
    Start with the premise that, 99 times out of 100, a prosecutor who wants an indictment can get one. So why wasn't Rove indicted? Two possibilities come to mind. One, all of Karl's testimony was completely honest, truthful and consistent with the facts. Two, Fitz didn't want an indictment. There are many reasons for Fitz to avoid indicting Rove. For example, if he's going to call Rove as prosecution witness, it does not help his cause to paint Karl as a lying, perjurious scumbag. Second, if there is no "deal" (at least not with a paper trail) then that deal need not be disclosed to the defense. Number two seems far more likely that number one. It now falls to Libby's counsel to start discrediting Rove by claiming that a deal was made, whether it's documented or not. Does the following constitute a "deal" that must be disclosed to Libby? "I'm not going to indict you because I'm going to call you as a witness." By not indicting Rove, Fitz avoids "pre-impeaching" his own witness. Makes sense to me.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#36)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:00:12 AM EST
    Leopold flat out said if he was wrong he would reveal his sources. He's copping out. I agree that he should protect his sources, but I'm not the one who showed all that earlier bravado. Also, Fitz could really take the heat off of this issue by laying out a few cards. He's the Anti-Starr. We can't get any info at all. Everybody's STILL guessing.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:47:35 AM EST
    Sorry - in blathering on, I neglected to address Jeralyn's question of possible legal jeapordy to truthout if sources were revealed. As they say, I'm not a lawyer...but I am a veteran journalist, and there is no binding legal contract stated nor implied when it comes to the question of confidentiality of sources. It is simply good faith: if a reporter burns his/her source, what usually happens is that the source freezes the reporter out, and perhaps convinces others to freeze him/her out. There is absolutely nothing that is actionable in a court of law about revealing a source. As Avon Barksdale said in The Wire: "...It ain't about that part of it; it's about that other thing." Reporters and sources work under unlegislated but very well-understood rules of engagement. We do not involve any courts or lawyers in that practice of our craft, nor should they ever be involved. There is a sublime libertarian basis for this: if you screw up, in any way, then you are the one who must suffer any and all real-world consequences vis-a-vis your chosen profession. Courts of law have many important things to deal with, and should not be burdened with the ways in which we play our games. As responsible adults, we just suck it up, admit our mistakes, and go on from there. And that is precisely why we do not reveal sources, because we are not in the business of crying and moaning in public and trying to lay blame on anyone else for any mistakes that we alone are ultimately responsible for. It's called being a grown-up. You don't take your ball and bat and go home, simply because you'd have to play by yourself - which is not a very advisable path for a reporter to follow. Then again, on the rare occasions when you do get set up and burned by unscrupulous sources, you may do whatever you feel the situation calls for, always knowing that the game is the game. At least, those were always the well-understood rules ever since I began plying this dodgy yet arguably very important craft of public affairs' reporting 25 years ago. Then again, the vast majority of us don't appear on broadcast media and boast that we will out the sources if our stories turn out to be wrong. It ain't about that kinda reporter, it's about that other kind...

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:56:29 AM EST
    off topic, deleted

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:39:49 PM EST
    Like much of the misinformation being peddled about what I said or didn't say or "invented" about this story the issue of "outing" my sources has taken on a life of it's own. It seems that people hear what they want to hear and then post it as fact--ironically, doing the same exact thing I have been accused of doing as it relates to my Rove story. For the record, I did not "boast" about outing my sources if my story turned out to be wrong. On the Ian Masters radio show on Pacifica radio on May 14th I said, and I quote, "if my sources knowingly led me astray... then they know I would no longer be obliged to protect their anonymity." That comment was made in a very general sense and was in response to a specific question. People heard it and like children playing a game of telephone passed it on and on and on until it became "Jason Leopold said he would out his sources if his story is wrong." Neither I nor the staff of Truthout believe we were lied to or knowingly led astray or manipulated or duped by our sources with regard to the specific details of my story. And there you have it.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:46:30 PM EST
    Neither I nor the staff of Truthout believe we were lied to or knowingly led astray or manipulated or duped by our sources with regard to the specific details of my story. Neither do I. But I seriously wonder, as I said upthread, if your sources were manipulated unknowingly.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 06:53:48 PM EST
    I certainly hope that some intrepid reporters will get to the bottom of this . Clearly there is a lot more reporting that needs to be done. It is truly counterproductive to launch a full on assault against me no matter what people think about me personally or professionally. I think the point has been made and the horse has been beaten to death. There is still a war going on and people are dying every day for what turned out to be a lie. Fight the real enemy.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    It is truly counterproductive to launch a full on assault against me Standard rovian tactics, whether instigated by rove or not. It appears they know no other way... and I for one believe it will come back to haunt them. 'Those who live by the sword...' etc.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    I certainly hope that some intrepid reporters will get to the bottom of this Someone, somewhere, who can corroborate, knows the truth of this. They need to get themselves into a safe situation. It will come out.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:29:47 PM EST
    I couldn't have said it better. All the while I was just trying to report the truth. I suppose other reporters may have been skeptical of the information. And knowing what I know now I would have been much slower in my reporting. But I still would have reported this story all the same. I knew the risk. Even the Thomas White story I wrote for Salon years ago which is now being referenced as an example of my credibility issues was eventually proven to be correct. It took two years and if you look at the Jeff Skilling indictment you will see that every element of my report on White was included in the Skilling indictment. But no one bothered to say that my reporting was in fact correct even though it took two years for the truth to come out. It truly surprises me, however, that people would actually believe that I invented a story like this out of whole cloth. I don't understand that kind of thinking. Believe me, I've gotten stories wrong before. Big stories. Every journalist has. I am not unique. Look at Mike Isikoff of Newsweek. Still, in my case I feel like Job from the Bible. And I am not a religious man.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:42:43 PM EST
    It truly surprises me, however, that people would actually believe that I invented a story like this out of whole cloth. It does surprise me as well. 'Why would anyone lie knowing that he'd be caught at it and damage his reputation?' was one of my first questions when the smearing started. And the reaction to me asking that question surprised me as well. I posted this on The Moderate Voice, and most of it here on Talkleft as well, and I'm still amazed at the responses. I don't know what else to say except that when something is to uncomfortable to accept people seem to tend towards denial. Reality is too threatening?

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 07:48:36 PM EST
    Jason, President Bush was misinformed and has been labled a liar, why should you be any different? You reported that Rove had been indicted, that was not true. Mistake or lie?

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:00:45 PM EST
    Jason, I'm gone from here for the night though I will hover and read occasionally. I for one am of the opinion that you wrote the truth as you believed it to be, and probably the truth in fact. I also believe there are others here who hold the same or similar opinion. I suspect some machinations we know nothing of now happened to change the circumstances. Thanks for the conversation here, and thanks for your past, and hopefully continued, work at Truthout and independently.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:03:51 PM EST
    President Bush was misinformed and has been labeled a liar, why should you be any different?
    Patrick you are too funny. Reporters including Leopold seek to uncover the truth and report it while neocons like Bush aim to conceal the truth by lying. That is what Bush has to do otherwise he would never get his way. Also Bush is the leader of America, Leopold is a reporter for a online magazine. Comparing the two is silly.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:19:46 PM EST
    I hope you'll post here more often, Jason. There are some here who will attack you, but you are also among friends and supporters here who will believe and support you.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:09:39 PM EST
    Thank you, Edger. I truly appreciate you listening to me.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:14:51 PM EST
    Edger, I will continue to post. I hold Jeralyn's work in high regard and have a great deal of respect for her. She knows that. My email if you ever want to contact me is jason@truthout.org. And I can handle the attacks. Sure it may rub me raw but it becomes rather juvenile in the overall scheme of things and reminds me of high school. It accomplishes absolutely zero. If it makes people feel better about themselves to dump their anger on me than so be it.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 10:21:13 PM EST
    Lastly, to the person who posted above about me supposedly copping to fabrications, that is a bald faced lie. I have never, ever fabricated a story nor have I ever admitted to such a crime. That is such a crock. Moreover, in my 15 years as a journalist not one news organization has ever accused me of fabrication. In my book I admitted to lots of things. Being a recovering drug addict/alcoholic and my criminal record. Fabrication is not one of those things. This is a perfect example of the lies that are peddled by sick, twisted people like the person above.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#54)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:16:38 PM EST
    Jason, I believe this is the comment from TL that is the point of contention: Bottom line: I believe Jason's sources told him what he reported. Were the sources accurate? Were they basically right but just mistaken on a few of the legal technicalities due to an unfamiliarity with the jargon? Time will tell. If they lied, Jason has promised to disclose their identities. Don't blame people for calling you out. It's a tough world. Personally I recommend showering with bricks. Is Rove going to be indicted? If not, who told you he was?

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#55)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:21:04 PM EST
    Fight the real enemy. HELP us.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:31:46 PM EST
    Jason, thank you for your comments here. As you know, I do not believe you made anything up. I believe your sources told you what you reported. If they were wrong, but they were duped, how can we find out who was behind it?

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:41:41 AM EST
    Jeralyn, perhaps Jason's source(s) are asking themselves the same question. If they read Talkleft and they can shed some light on the situation I'd like to see them post here about it, even if under pseudonyms from a public computer so that the IP address is untraceable to them.

    Re: Sealed Case 06cr00128 and Outing Sources (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:42:21 PM EST
    Jason- I've followed your work for years and I would like to say thanks to you and Truthout(crew) for having the courage to speak out. This current glitch that has some folks in an uproar has too many real possibilities that may never be known. If it's any consolation, I believe and support your decisions and the truth-credibility in good faith of your journalism. I have learned more information to form educated opinions because folks like you didn't back down. Stand your ground on this and the integrity of that position will mean more to the many who listen. Thanks TalkLeft for a great forum to discuss these issues and thanks again Jason.