So, how’s that Rove indictment working out?

May 22, 2006

Just to update an item from last Monday, [tag]TruthOut[/tag]’s [tag]Jason Leopold[/tag] reported nine days ago that [tag]Karl Rove[/tag] has, in fact, been [tag]indicted[/tag] as part of the [tag]Plame[/tag] investigation, and was given 24 hours to prepare. It’s been a week and nothing’s happened. Over the weekend, TruthOut published a “partial [tag]apology[/tag]” from its executive director, [tag]Marc Ash[/tag].

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.

I’m afraid this isn’t terribly compelling. The problem here isn’t about aggressive reporting that gets “too far out in front of the news-cycle”; the problem is reporting information that appears to be false. Either the [tag]Leopold[/tag] article on [tag]Rove[/tag]’s [tag]indictment[/tag] was true or not. [tag]Ash[/tag]’s “partial apology” doesn’t say either way.

Salon contacted Ash and asked for some additional clarification.

Ash said that Truthout needs to “cool down the reactor a little bit” as it tries to learn more about the “cycle” on which [tag]Fitzgerald[/tag]’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 that’s an entirely accurate choice of words.

It’s also worth noting that Leopold’s article on Rove’s indictment built off an alleged all-day meeting on May 12 between Rove’s attorneys and federal prosecutors. Robert [tag]Luskin[/tag], Karl Rove’s lawyer, told the WaPo’s Howard Kurtz that he spent most of the day on May 12 taking his cat to the vet and having a technician fix his computer at home.

He was stunned, therefore, when journalists started calling to ask about an online report that he had spent half the day at his law office, negotiating with Patrick Fitzgerald — and that the special prosecutor had secretly obtained an indictment of Rove. […]

Luskin calls the reports “absolutely bizarre. I’m waiting for him to tell me whether Fitzgerald had the chicken or the pasta. . . . There was no meeting, no communication with Fitzgerald’s team of any kind.”

The Kurtz piece also describes Leopold’s troubled past in some detail, noting that the writer has battled drug addiction and mental illness and been convicted of grand larceny. Kurtz added that Salon retracted a Leopold article in 2002 after it was unable to confirm the authenticity of an e-mail that Leopold produced.

As for the latest developments, TruthOut ran yet another report on the subject last night, explaining that Rove really was indicted last week, but may now be cooperating with prosecutors as a witness against Dick [tag]Cheney[/tag]. Rove’s lawyer and spokesman categorically deny every word in the TruthOut article, using unambiguous language such as “utter lies,” “delusional,” “lunacy,” and “frauds.”

I hope Rove is indicted; I really do. And sometime soon, it might actually happen. But given what we know, I believe TruthOut is wrong and its reports on the case are literally unbelievable.

I thought Leopold had promised to out his sources if they were giving him false information. By now it’s obvious the information was false. Time for Leopold to tell us who his anonymous sources were, or admit he made it all up.

  • I realize Leopold has had questionable articles before, but this could be an attempt to discredit him with someone feeding him phoney information. Maybe that’s a little paranoid, but it is the way they sometimes work over at Rove Inc.

  • A fundamental flaw in the blogosphere – lack of reliable editors to check and double check such stories.

    Not that the mainstream press has anything better to offer, now that they’ve become lapdogs of celebrities (which, today, would include those in elective or appointive office).

    As a nation, we’re becoming like the French court, without their good taste in clothing or food. I wonder how long it’ll take us to go the way of the French court?

  • There is a third option to explain what might be the real story. Mr. C.B., you say that either Rove was indicted (and Fitzgerald is sitting on it) or he wasn’t (and the Leopold story was a crock from the beginning). The third option is that Rove in fact was indicted, but that Fitzgerald’s now-immediate superior at the DoJ ordered it cancelled.

    Yesterday on the web (sorry, don’t have time now to locate the link) I saw a post that there is a legal case filed in the D.C. Federal District Court just this past week where both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were listed as “sealed”, and the speculation is that in fact Fitzgerald had filed suit against Gonzo to force the indictment to go ahead. The post that I saw had speculated that AAG Comey’s authorization for Fitzgerald allowed this action of indicting Rove, but that Comey’s successor said “no” and said that Fitzgerald’s actions were out of bounds.

    I’ll look for the link, but based on my legal education and experience, this post went a long way to explaining the seemingly inexplicable.

    P.S. I would trust Luskin’s denials about as much as I would those proffered by the Royal Buffoon himself; I suggest we all do the same.

  • So who is less credible, Jason Leopold or Howie Kurtz? Some choice there.

  • Here is the link to the third option that I referenced in Comment #4 above: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/21/184052/881

    Hope the link works. Mind you, I am not vouching for the position advocated by this diaryist at DailyKos; it just makes a case that there could very well be more than meets the eye, and all is not an either-or proposition. That seems to be good advice ALWAYS when dealing with the Rethugs, BushCo, and the CCCP.

  • I hope Mr Ash writes, generally, more accurately than the quality of his English. “Stupider” is not right: he means “more stupid”.

  • I have a question that I hope a lawyer might be able to answer. According to the Kos Diary linked to by AL,

    Last Friday, Judge Reggie Walton, the presiding judge in the Libby trial, deliberated over a case titled “SEALED v. SEALED.” There is growing speculation that sealed v. sealed is Fitzgerald v. Gonzales’ Deputy, Paul McNulty (Fitzgerald’s direct superior).

    If DOJ killed the indictment and Fitzgeral appealed would Walton or the judge presiding over the G/J hear the case?

  • I don’t know if the guy is reporting “false” info. Info unsupported by any provable facts, maybe. It may all play out that Rove was in fact indicted but other intervening events, like cooperation against someone else or intervention by Abu Gonzales both as noted above, slowed this down–and the guy was technically correct but a “victim of soicumstance.” Or it may play out that Rove has not been indicted due to items such as cooperation or intervention–and the guy may still be technically correct. Or it could be that he was just plain wrong. And as X above says, can one really trust a ho like Howie?

  • Out of all this, we’re still hearing the drumbeat of an indictment. People at TruthOut are trying to prop up the story by formulating ‘cover-stories” for it; others are saying that the indictment did, in fact, occur—but was later quashed by Gonzo.

    My concern is simply this. How—no matter which way this story is turned, spun, flipped, flopped, slapped-around, or whatever—did Fitz serve an indictment to Rove’s attorneys, when the scuttlebutt puts him a good many hundreds of miles away at the very same time? Now, I might be wrong here—but unless Fitz is Christ Reincarnate himself, I just cannot see him being in two places at the exact same time. “Getting too far out in front of the news cycle” would be a fine way to give the Republikanner Reich another go-around via the mid-terms….

  • mayb boosh immediately pardoned him and then classified it….
    what crime? I didn’t see a crime…did you see a crime?

  • Christy Hardin Smith of Firedoglake explained the sealed indictment possibility very well:

    when you have a “sealed indictment,” it is sealed — as in not publicly available — for a reason. We used them a lot in drug conspiracy cases, where you had evidence of lower level people but were still working the investigation up the chain, and you would indict a lower level dealer when you had evidence on them, seal the indictment so as not to tip off higher level dealer/distributors, and then unseal the entire batch of indictments if and when you completed the investigation or you had to make an arrest on someone you thought was going to flee the jurisdiction.

    Once you talk about an indictment that is under seal with anyone, you break that seal and the information contained within the indictment can become public. Which, frankly, defeats the whole point of having a sealed indictment in the first place.

    I have no idea whether this is the case with Rove. But, it’s the hook from which what’s left of Leopold’s credibility hangs. If it is true, I’d say Cheney is in trouble. If it’s untrue, I’d say Leopold is a liar.

  • I would like to give this story a little more time before we throw Truthout and Leopold overboard. I think the hit piece about mental illness and drug addiction in the past is a little over the top and makes me wonder what is going on. If the indictment is sealed does that mean that we may never find out the particulars or does it mean we have to wait? I have no legal background (besides my now deceased father), so I don’t know. Can anyone tell me?

  • Oh sad. I had such lovely thoughts of Karl in kuffs. Well, let’s keep thinking positively. I don’t think it’s likely that he’s ratting on Cheney. He knows a full pardon awaits a good boy. And that’s only necessary if the forces of justice can get by Gonzo. But, let us pray for Fitz’s continued good health and good deeds.

    • Comments are closed.