home

My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold on Rove

Karl Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, called me at 8:20 a.m. Mountain Time today. He said someone had read him my post over the phone about my conversation with Jason Leopold (and he had picked up my voice-mail from Saturday night) and he wanted to respond. Here is Mr. Corallo's version:

1. He has never spoken with someone identifying himself as "Jason Leopold." He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday along the lines I described, but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the Londay Sunday Times. The calls were to his home number. At one point during their last conversation, he offered to call Joel back, and was given a cell phone number that began with 917. When he called the number back, it turned out not to be be a number for Joel.

2. Josh Gerstein and Byron York called him, not the other way around.

3. There was no meeting or communication between Luskin and Fitzgerald on Friday. Bob was not in the office on Friday at all. He was home, taking care of a sick cat.

4. Karl Rove did not tell the President he would resign.

5. Karl Rove has not been indicted nor told he would be indicted. As far as Corallo knows (and he is in contact with Luskin) Fitzgerald has not yet made up his mind as to whether to charge Rove. There are no charges.

6. He says there is not an ounce of truth to anything Jason wrote. He says he made it up. He also denies that Jason left him a message before the article ran.

7. He has received calls from the major papers on this and denied the story to all of them.

Mr. Corallo's tone was not angry. He was friendly and seemed sincere. If anything, he sounded somewhat bewildered and incredulous at how Jason could have written his article.

So, there you have it. A full and complete official Camp Rove denial of everything in Jason's article.

Now we wait and see. Jason has said if the story is false, he will publicly disclose his sources.

Mr. Corallo gave me his cell phone number for future questions. I asked him how late I could call him and he said up to 11 pm was fine for routine matters and any time if it was breaking news.

Update 4:30 pm: More from Mark Carallo:

The reason we were so "hot to dismiss a relatively unknown reporter writing for an online lefty journal," is because he caused real journalists to waste their time all weekend calling me (and in turn wasting my time) - that's right, every major network and newspaper called me and/or Bob Luskin starting on Friday morning and not ending until late last night;

....I got a call today from the real Joel Loria of the Sunday Times. ... you could call him and he will tell you that he had dinner with our Mr. Leopold last week.

< Leopold Responds to Corallo's Denial of Fitzgerald - Luskin Meeting | ABC News: Gov't Montioring Reporters' Phone Calls >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Man, this is getting weird.

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:09:54 AM EST
    1, 2, 6. Someone's not speaking truthfully. We've got pretty well diametrically-opposed stories here. 3. A partner in a big international law firm with his docket holding one of the biggest cases going skipped work to care for a sick cat? OoooooKaaaaaay? Did he ever claim the dog eat his pleadings, too? I mean, given his probable billing rate, one could buy all the cats in the pound for one days' billings. 4,5. We'll see who's right. 7. So?

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:10:44 AM EST
    Oh, it was nice of Corallo to handle this professionally, regardless of the truth of the matters discussed.

    Wow, now you need to call Gerstein & Byron York to get their assertions-- plus hunt up a Joel at the London Times. This is getting deep and nasty! I am grateful for your efforts to shine light in this murky cesspool!

    Good idea too, getting the "latest hour I can call" time seeing how that so discombobulated Mr. Luskin, who was still exhausted and recovering I suppose, from his tender care of his kitty.

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#6)
    by orionATL on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:18:00 AM EST
    such delicious detail. thanks tl

    One weird thing that jumped out immediately: if Leopold really did misidentify himself as "Joel of the London Sunday Times," as Corallo is clearly insinuating, why the hell would Corallo blast him for writing a defamatory article? Or does Corallo claim that that part of the conversation (which is based on Jason Leopold's accounting to you) never happened? On another topic, it seems like there must be some way to verify the simple fact of whether Fitzgerald was in Chicago or Washington last Friday, but IANAJ (I am not a journalist!) so I can't think of what it would be in light of Fitz's office refusing to comment on anything ...

    Someone is trying to get us all to have Rove fatigue. I got excited Saturday and chacked all day Sunday for confirmation. I'm sick and tired but mostly sick and tired of the crooks in this administration. I will celebrate every time a lie gets outed, a thug indicted, and will GOTV in 2006.

    Oh yeah
    I am grateful for your efforts to shine light in this murky cesspool!
    I just wanted to echo this a thousand fold. Weird stuff, and we Plameaholics (Fitzaholics?) are grateful for your efforts on this ... I suppose, and I don't know whether you feel like doing this at this point, that the next logical step would be to email Jason Leopold again and ask him whether he identified himself as Jason Leopold when he talked to Corallo. If he says yes, at that point we'll know that one of them is telling a pretty direct, balls to the wall lie (and, skeptical though I have been on this whole story, my money would be on the guy that works for Rove).

    I don't know who to believe, but both gentleman can consider themselves off of my holiday card list.

    sdf(Stu) the next logical step would be to email Jason Leopold again and ask him whether he identified himself as Jason Leopold when he talked to Corallo. Of course if we were the NSA, we'd have all this information already!

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:32:33 AM EST
    Translation: Rove still has until early tomorrow morning to give up Cheney and possibly others or he is looking at jail time. Spinorama.

    Any significance in the number starting 917?
    holding one of the biggest cases going skipped work to care for a sick cat? OoooooKaaaaaay? Did he ever claim the dog eat his pleadings, too?
    No it couldn't manage another bite after eating my homework.

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:56:08 AM EST
    917 is an "overlay" area code, primarily for cell phones, in Manhattan, NYC.

    Regular Eschaton commentor Pseudonymous in NC was just saying that Jason Leopold was being interviewed on the radio this morning (he said it was on the Denver-Boulder 760AM station) saying that it's insane that people would give the Rove spokesperson more credence than him. Just to add to the pot.

    Very cool. Many thanks, TalkLeft--and your venture into reportage has turned out very well. Nice to have the denial so thorough and so much on the record.

    Resolving the conflicting stories over who called whom should be easy ... ... just ask the NSA.

    All of this is really a fascinating mini-drama. And I can't help but wonder why Team Rove is so hot to dismiss a relatively unknown reporter writing for an online lefty journal. It seems like an awful lot of "handling" for a relatively obscure-to-the-mainstream news report. Have blogs and online but not mainstream media finally garnered respect?

    Leopold said on Denver's 760AM station that Fitzgerald will make the announcement on Wednesday. This will prove whether or not Leopold's article was accurate. Leopold is standing by his story 100% and that he has been talking to his sources all weekend. We shall see how all this plays out.

    Well, since there are presumably still some companies selling phone records on the web, and since the FBI has purchased phone records, maybe someone will engage in "turnaround is fair play" and buy Mr. Corallo's phone records next month to see who called who this past week. Yes, I know it's stooping to their level, and I wouldn't do it, but there would be some poetic justice in it. -- "We have met the enemy and he is us." PogoWasRight.org

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sydnie on Mon May 15, 2006 at 09:51:46 AM EST
    Luskin has never been shy about making comments before, why is he shying away from answering your questions now? You would think he would be the first to confirm that this is not factual, if that were the case. He wouldn't need to refer you, or anyone else, to a paid mouth PR guy. Fitz has asked for no gag order to be in effect so Luslin could speak to the article without fear. Rove was asked a question about his statements to McClean today at his speech at AEI. He referred the reporter back to the statement that Luskin made on April 26th, not to his PR guy at all. Statements from that far back vindicate Rove from the cloud of charges ... but .... haven't things possibly changed since that public statement from Luskin? Referral back to a previous position does nothing but delay the process of the reporter and buy time for Luskin to figure out how he is going to move the next piece on the board. I find it odd that Luskin is not blustering that his client is not in the type of jeopardy that he appears to be by Leopold's account. I have never known a high profile lawyer with "the truth" on their side to allow a "kitty" to capture his tongue.

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#22)
    by Tom Maguire on Mon May 15, 2006 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    Now we wait and see. Jason has said if the story is false, he will publicly disclose his sources. In other words, if he has been lying/misinformed about everything else, he will tell us something believable about this. Excellent. Up above was this question: One weird thing that jumped out immediately: if Leopold really did misidentify himself as "Joel of the London Sunday Times," as Corallo is clearly insinuating, why the hell would Corallo blast him for writing a defamatory article? The answer is probably in the pronouns used in Jeralyn's post: Jason said Corallo answered his call (and was wide awake) and told him his article was false, that it bordered on defamation, that Fitzgerald was not in Washington on Friday and that Luskin was not in his office on Friday. The word "his" may simply have come from Jason; Corallo may have been telling what he belived to be a third party Brit reporter that the Leopold report was false, defamatory, etc. Stray hint - since Brit laws on defamation are much tighter than here in the US (I don't know what a US reporter could say about Rove that *would* be defamatory), it does provide a nudge in the direction that Corallo thought he was talking to a Brit paper.

    I said this on another thread, but it's worth repeating. Carallo is not an attorney, he's a media manipulator, he can lie free of any legal encumbrance.

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 15, 2006 at 10:04:30 AM EST
    Tom M quotes:
    Jason said Corallo answered his call (and was wide awake)
    And how does Jason know this? The same way he knew the indictment was done and Rove would surrender today and not speak???

    JimakaPPJ Jason said Corallo answered his call (and was wide awake) And how does Jason know this? The same way he knew the indictment was done and Rove would surrender today and not speak??? You obviously either didn't read Jeralyn's post on her call on Saturday night to Luskin, when he was so upset with her calling past his kitty's bedtime (yes I inferred the kitty and the bedtime, so don't get all excited!) or you are so lacking in a sense of humor or poetic symmetry that you couldn't grasp wry turn of the "wide awake" phrase.

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#26)
    by Tom Maguire on Mon May 15, 2006 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    I said this on another thread, but it's worth repeating. Carallo is not an attorney, he's a media manipulator, he can lie free of any legal encumbrance. Is Jason Leopold an attorney? Are there any encumbrances other than legal consequences that might steer someone towards telling the truth? Is there any benefit to Corallo from peddling an absurdly over-detailed lie, rather than just saying "No comment"? Is there any benefit to Leopold to making stuff up? My impression is that he gets paid for articles, and his history for scrupulous accuracy does not inspire confidence. Or, if Leopold's history is irrelevant, then why shouldn't Rove's history be irrelevant? Maybe we can just judge this on the merits with no reference to the history on either side.

    Corallo may not be lying if he has not been told. Since when are press people in the inner circle, especially when they need to divert from the truth. As for Leopold - yes, he has a history that includes plagiarism and loose reporting. His motives here - he did not need to make up a story that could ruin his career for good. He's been on target lately and I believe that he believes his sources. That he may have been set up is another story.....

    Rove indictment rumours on the blogs were discussed this afternoon on NPR's Day Today by Noah Adams...for all it was worth. NPR fluffy "news" magazine coopting blog bounce, and no real new insights by Noah "cheddar omlette" Adams, formerly a decent reporter. or from this post....

    Is Jason Leopold an attorney? Are there any encumbrances other than legal consequences that might steer someone towards telling the truth? Is there any benefit to Corallo from peddling an absurdly over-detailed lie, rather than just saying "No comment"? My comment was directed to the person who asked why Luskin would direct calls regarding Rove's status to Carallo. I do believe that as an attorney Luskin can't just outright lie. He can spin and parse, but I don't think he can lie. Maybe the attorneys here can clarify this if I'm mistaken. I also conjectured that perhaps Carallo is out to squash Leopold because he is too close. It's to Carallo's benefit to trash the veracity of a reporter who really might have the inside track and to do so before the case goes public like Libby's. Now, all that being said, does not mean I fall down on Leopold's side at this moment. Time will tell if his tale is true or not.

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    As for Leopold - yes, he has a history that includes plagiarism and loose reporting
    When you slander a person shouldn't you provide links? (please, please ask me for links that disprove the swiftboating of Leopold.)

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:41:23 PM EST
    scribe writes:
    . A partner in a big international law firm with his docket holding one of the biggest cases going skipped work to care for a sick cat?
    I have came home to take care of sick pets. And if Fitzgerald wasn't where Jason said he was, why would Luskin feel constrained to not take care of personal business? Sailor - I know nothing of Leopold, who does he report for? My advice to him would be, release your sources, right now. He's looking very bad. SharonW writes:
    All of this is really a fascinating mini-drama. And I can't help but wonder why Team Rove is so hot to dismiss a relatively unknown reporter writing for an online lefty journal.
    Maybe because it is wrong? Speechless - Well, you quoted Jason as saying something. Now you call it humor. Somehow I don't think Jason would find it funny.

    Re: My Conversation With Mark Corallo Re: Leopold (none / 0) (#32)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    My advice to him would be, release your sources, right now. He's looking very bad. Expose your sources now? Oh yeah, it's Jim. If Jason is right, Luskin and Carollo will suffer very little, reputation wise. If Jason is wrong, the left Blogosphere will suffer a la Rathergate. Even though 99% of the population is totally unaware of what is happening, this is a big deal on the internet. But I'm sure the next person to die on "Lost" is more important. Lost is right. Keep up the great work JM.

    One motive for a Rove spokesman's denial today is to keep the lid on until Bush's speech tonight is over and he gets whatever benefit he expects from it.

    I have concerns, especially since I've relied heavily on Leopold's writing for my many political posts, and I will be expecting some explanation before I'm ready to fully trust Leopold again. But one thing that occurs to me: Rove has mastered the art of disinformation and part of this looks like some intentional disinformation flak. It's hard not to notice that the game of feeding false information to the media and then reacting to that information was exactly how Plamegate went down -- with a few miscalculations by Libby and Rove. I haven't let Leopold off the hook yet, but much of his information does match other reporter's stories. Moreover, the news that Rove had been indicted was echoed by Joseph Wilson via Larry Johnson, and was predicted by Chris Matthews on Imus's show, so it's not as if Leopold is completely alone. And it is hard to believe that Rove's fifth grand jury appearence wasn't because of the threat of prosecution. I expect indictment soon, I also believe the Fitzgerald is waiting -- possibly because he wants to continue to play Libby off Rove -- and is in no rush to indict for very good reasons.