home

Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Thu May 18, 2006 at 07:48:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

While we wait....From Byron York at The Corner, debunking Wayne Madsen's report last night that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met with the grand jury on Friday, May 12, where he was given a preview of the Karl Rove indictment so he could tell the White House. (Background here.)

First, a Justice Department source, speaking on background, says that Alberto Gonzales did not go to the courthouse on Friday, May 12.

Second, Gonzales, like his predecessor John Ashcroft, has recused himself from the CIA leak investigation. Gonzales, as White House counsel, had taken part in the White House's response to the Justice Department in the early days of the probe. When he became attorney general, there was no doubt that he would have to recuse himself from the matter. He was asked about it during a press conference in October 2005, when there was great anticipation that indictments were coming in the CIA leak affair, and this is what he had to say:

York quotes from the press conference:

QUESTION: And does Patrick Fitzgerald -- will he notify you if he's about to indict anyone? And lastly, is he under any obligation [to file] a public report?

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: I am recused from this investigation. I have been since coming to the Department of Justice. That means that not only am I recused from making decisions or participating in decisions regarding this investigation, I am recused from receiving information about the investigation. Quite frankly, you probably know more about this case than I do. I do not receive briefings. I do not receive any information about this particular case.

And in terms of what will happen going forward, you -- you have as much information about that as I do. That's -- that'll be a decision made by Pat Fitzgerald.

Back to York's analysis:

Finally, it simply defies common sense to think that Fitzgerald and the grand jury would give the attorney general a preview of an indictment in the CIA leak matter. "Gonzales would not be given that kind of information," says one insider. "The reason one is recused from the case is so that one cannot make decisions that would affect the case -- like he might tell the White House."

York asked Mark Corallo about Madsen's claim that Luskin has been told he is a "subject" of the investigation. Corallo said it's not true. He reiterated again there was no meeting Friday.

I think York is correct and Madsen got spun about Gonzales. But none of this means Karl Rove will or will not be indicted tomorrow. The mainstream media is conspicuously avoiding the topic. Stay tuned.

< WI High Court Okays Cops Giving Laxative to Drug Suspect | Rudi Giuliani Steps Right; Supports Ralph Reed >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column | 32 comments (32 topical)
    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:23:36 PM EST
    fitz! oh wait, that's for FDL

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:26:19 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I agree that it is a very conspicuous silence from the MSM concerning the Rove supposed non-story... I commented earlier at FDL that it is highly suspicious to me that the MSM isn't even requesting that Luskin or Corallo comment to the mainstream media that the Rove indictment story is false. Lastly, is it possible that Bushco put a stop to an announcement of an indictment??? nah, too paranoid

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:29:48 PM EST
    Madsen claims to have been there. He saw what looked like Gonzales' motorcade. One other possibility is that it was an unofficial visit that he was not suppose to make. Or spun. So what. Something is going on. tomorrow: TGI Fitzfriday.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:49:25 PM EST
    karelroc-
    Lastly, is it possible that Bushco put a stop to an announcement of an indictment??? nah, too paranoid
    There is a war on you know, and the Unit can instantly classify or declassify for reasons of national security. If Osama found out that Rove was indicted they would take advantage of the situation and attack. It must be kept a secret. The editors may have gotten National Security Letters and are keeping their mouths shut. Gitmo stands as a symbol. That would be a grand sight. The prison press conferences with sets made to look like his office. The press would not be allowed to reveal that he had been convicted. It would look great on tv.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:54:27 PM EST
    Something stinks here. They are going too far out of their way to talk all of this down. Lord, I hate to bring up this tired old axiom but I do think they doth protest too much.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimcee on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:12:39 PM EST
    TL, Your take on this, using many sources seems to be about right. Thank you for your objectivity. If the fellow that 'broke' this story was full of BS and it is starting to look that way, it begs two questions: 1) Show your sources or lose your creds and 2)If he is wrong what will his credibilty be when he is right? It is a 'tough row to hoe' when one tries to try to 'scoop' the MSM and the other blogs. Over all it really does ruin the credibility of the blogasphere by proxy. Whether he is truthful or not the Blogs took a hit with his exclamation. TL, you also jumped at this fellow's bait but over all you run a better ship than he. Just being honest and thank you for the forum.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#7)
    by ltgesq on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:13:30 PM EST
    As an answer to an earlier question regarding what an attorney who is indicted can do regarding working out a deal: there is no attorney client privilege to the commission of a crime. If a lawyer conspires to commit a crime (like obstruction) with his client, then the privilege no longer applies. In the 80's and 90's there was an awful lot of defense attorneys out there indicted for money laundering for having taken money for fees to represent drug dealers. If the client decides to drop on you to save his own skin, you are done for. That is why you don't play fast and loose, you keep your head, and you understand that this is not the only client you are ever going to have. When Luskin came forward to testify on his client's behalf, they opened certain communications up to review. Regardless of how this works out for luskin, if rove is charged with obstruction or perjury, luskin will have to be a defense witness. In any case, he will have to get out of the case once the indictment comes down. I was quite surprised to see that Libby's previous lawyer at the grand jury stage was never threatened with being a subject of an investigation for having written that letter to Judith Miller essentially telling her what to testify to. I think that a less careful and more aggressive US attorney would have pursued that issue to make sure the rest of the lawyers understand what lines should not be crossed. Whether Luskin, or any of the other lawyers in this case are any good, i have no way of knowing. Unless you see someone in trial yourself it is pretty hard to make a judgement. The amount of press a lawyer gets and a great reputation do not necessarily mean that the attorney is that good. One of the finest criminal lawyers I have ever seen is a public defender who gets no recognition at all -- either in the press, or in his own office.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:15:41 PM EST
    if nothing happens tomorrow, Jason Leopold's gonna have a lot of 'splaning to do...........

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#9)
    by ltgesq on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:19:44 PM EST
    As an answer to an earlier question regarding what an attorney who is indicted can do regarding working out a deal: there is no attorney client privilege to the commission of a crime. If a lawyer conspires to commit a crime (like obstruction) with his client, then the privilege no longer applies. In the 80's and 90's there was an awful lot of defense attorneys out there indicted for money laundering for having taken money for fees to represent drug dealers. If the client decides to drop on you to save his own skin, you are done for. That is why you don't play fast and loose, you keep your head, and you understand that this is not the only client you are ever going to have. When Luskin came forward to testify on his client's behalf, they opened certain communications up to review. Regardless of how this works out for luskin, if rove is charged with obstruction or perjury, luskin will have to be a defense witness. In any case, he will have to get out of the case once the indictment comes down. I was quite surprised to see that Libby's previous lawyer at the grand jury stage was never threatened with being a subject of an investigation for having written that letter to Judith Miller essentially telling her what to testify to. I think that a less careful and more aggressive US attorney would have pursued that issue to make sure the rest of the lawyers understand what lines should not be crossed. Whether Luskin, or any of the other lawyers in this case are any good, i have no way of knowing. Unless you see someone in trial yourself it is pretty hard to make a judgement. The amount of press a lawyer gets and a great reputation do not necessarily mean that the attorney is that good. One of the finest criminal lawyers I have ever seen is a public defender who gets no recognition at all -- either in the press, or in his own office.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:21:19 PM EST
    Ltgesq.... Thank you for a thorough and edifying answer. I've been very curious what Luskin's status (and options) might be, ever since the Viveka Novak conversation when he became, in essence, a part of the case and a witness to certain aspects as well as an attorney. If Luskin is no longer the attorney of record, could he not become very dangerous to Rove if he (Luskin) then sets out to protect himself?

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#11)
    by teacherken on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:23:33 PM EST
    I am probably to lame for this piece by Byron. He came out to my school to spend several hours with my AP Government students. As we walked into the building I told him about the Madsen piece. He said that the thing about Gonzales going to the Courthouse was something new to him. I expressed a mild bit of surprise, since I noted that when I had encountered Joe Wilson on Saturday that was one thing he had told me - that Gonzales had been at the Courthouse on Friday. I am assuming that Byron decided to follow up on that.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#13)
    by Tom Maguire on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:26:12 PM EST
    Is it: I agree that it is a very conspicuous silence from the MSM concerning the Rove supposed non-story... or: Lord, I hate to bring up this tired old axiom but I do think they doth protest too much. These talking points beg to be harmonized.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:27:54 PM EST
    Jason has said he will reveal his sources if they were lying. I'm more skeptical of Madsen than I am of Jason. I believe that Jason's sources told him what he reported. As to whether the sources were correct or not is another story. Also, Jason is not a blogger. He is a journalist who writes for an online publication, Truthout.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#14)
    by Pete Guither on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    Jimcee, I fail to see how the blogs took a hit on this one. As far as I can tell, this has been a fine example of quality work by the blogosphere. Allegations have surfaced, and they've been thoroughly discussed and analyzed, without everybody jumping to conclusions. There's been an intellectual discussion, and people are keeping an open mind, while waiting for more evidence. If only the media had treated all the lies leading up to the Iraq war in the same way.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:42:21 PM EST
    Also it wasn't just Leopold. Schuster of MSNBC said on May 8 (on Hardball) that he had been told by members of Rove's team that they had been told to expect a decision "within two weeks." Since a decision that cleared Rove would no doubt have been announced, this announcement by Shuster... not just Leopold's story... is a primary reason for the whole world remaining on indictment watch.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:52:21 PM EST
    "Since a decision that cleared Rove would no doubt have been announced" Not necessarily. If Fitz and Rove made a deal, I'm sure it would be hush-hush (as all the details get worked out, and Rove starts spilling the beans). Meanwhile, Rove's representatives would deny deny deny, and Fitz would keep building his case.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:12:22 PM EST
    if only the media had treated all the lies leading up to the iraq war in the same way.
    exactly my feelings. why would blogtopia (yes! we coined that phrase!) take a hit if one person reported something incorrectly and everyone else talked about what that person reported? most of the blogs we've seen, including talkleft and our own, have couched the story very specifically in the "jason leopold of truthout sez..." sort of terms. and even if it turns out to be horse puckey, it's not like the msm never made a boo boo. or even owned up to it when it was proven to be a boo boo.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimcee on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:38:21 PM EST
    Pete, When blogs are wrong, in spades, then the credibility of all blogs are in doubt. Regardless of one's politics.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:52:09 PM EST
    Jimcee - The general can imply the specific, but when the specific is used to attempt implying the general, then the intention of the writer is in doubt. Regardless of one's politics.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:57:19 PM EST
    jimcee-
    When blogs are wrong, in spades, then the credibility of all blogs are in doubt.
    First off Leopold is not a blogger, secondly if Leopold is wrong it is a single person wrong not "bloggers" plural as you put it. So, if the Podunk Star Ledger a print newspaper gets an article wrong about the dangers of pickle farming then the WSJ loses credibility. Right

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:00:28 PM EST
    Gonzales acknowledged on Face the Nation that he was a witness before the Plame grand jury. Maybe if he was called back on May 12, it was to testify again, not to be apprised of an Indictment
    Nice point!

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:03:03 PM EST
    I think Rove has been spilling the beans since at least his October, 2005 grand jury appearance, when his indictment appeared imminent. His lawyer characterizes it as "cooperating fully with the investigation." I have always believed it was cooperating for a 5k . One other note: Gonzales acknowledged on Face the Nation that he was a witness before the Plame grand jury. Maybe if he was called back on May 12, it was to testify again, not to be apprised of an Indictment. Gonzales got the original call about preserving e-mails. He told Andy Card immediately. Card shared the info with Rove. They waited 12 hours to tell the White House staff about it. Details here . 250 pages of e-mails turn up in February from the Executive Office of the President and Vice President. Were they deleted e-mails? Did Rove tip them to the e-mails as part of his effort to cooperate? Did he implicate Andy Card? This case has so many tentacles, it's hard to keep track fo them all.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:23:59 PM EST
    TL:
    "cooperating fully with the investigation." I have always believed it was cooperating for a 5k
    5k: the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense It is a bit of a stretch to imagine rove altruistically assisting in seeing justice done, yes...

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:47:04 PM EST
    Truthout Editor: I Know and Speak With Leopold's Secret Rove Sources Appears Muckraker is weighing in.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:55:42 PM EST
    Jimcee -
    When blogs are wrong, in spades, then the credibility of all blogs are in doubt.
    Is somewhat akin to saying that because Byron York is the author of the book "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President -- and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time" then all of the right wing are liberal hating conspiracy mavens. And btw, the fact that York wrote the book has no relation to his attempted smears of Jason Leopold, or to his desire to debunk Madsen or to defend rove.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:06:51 AM EST
    Time will tell...Happy Friday! [Ed. Please put your url in the space for it in the name slot, not in the body of your comment.]

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:15:32 AM EST
    edger:
    The general can imply the specific, but when the specific is used to attempt implying the general, then the intention of the writer is in doubt.

    Regardless of one's politics.
    And if leaks are later shown to have been in error, and certain politicians attempt to use one blogger's reporting of those leaks as evidence that all bloggers can be ignored, then the intention of the leakers is in doubt too. Regardless of one's politics. But especially if the leaks in question concerned the honesty of those politicians or their colleagues in public office.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:27:30 AM EST
    edger, at first I thought you were joking, but I see that Byron York really did write a book with that title, just last year. So I guess we have to at least consider the possibility that he might be predisposed to disbelieve Leopold's claims about the Rove indictment. It was very restrained of TL not to even mention that possibility, however faint it may be.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:40:41 AM EST
    I noted that when I had encountered Joe Wilson on Saturday that was one thing he had told me - that Gonzales had been at the Courthouse on Friday.
    It's odd, no more than odd that Joe Wilson seems to have the same information that both Leopold and Madsen have. And it seems like it can only mean a small number of people talking among themselves. I still don't understand how Madsen, even assuming he saw a motorcade, had any reason to think that it was Gonzales. Here's hoping one Patrick Fitzgerald (no, not the one that posts in the comments section here) had a nice flight from Chicago to DC this evening ...

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:43:55 AM EST
    Also, I think TL's comment above is an important one. Just because TruthOut is on the internet doesn't make it a blog, although I am more than certain that fine distinction will get lost in the shuffle if someone in the SCLM decides they want to go with another of their patented "those wacky conspiracy theory liberal bloggers are way out there" stories.

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:50:40 AM EST
    In terms of credibility, it appears to me that the blogisphere is too sensitive about being right. How many times did Judy Miller, Debra Howell and all the MSM stenographers worry about being wrong? In Howell's case, she's even proven to be full of it and that doesn't stop her from shilling more GOP Talking points the very next (and every) week. How many times do you think Tweety has worried about playing Hardball with Democrats and Softball with Repugs? How many times has Leslie Blitzkreig (oh Bearded One) apologized for the admin propaganda he pushes and for being completely wrong? How many times do you think Faux's Mort Kondracke, John Gibson and Bill O'Liely have been concerned about being the Triple A Affiliate of the White House? Come on folks, move on. If one blogger (or both) got suckered by Rove's spin machine, it pales in comparison to how bad the MSM got the WMD issue (and ties to Al Qaeda and links to terrorists and "welcomed with flowers", cakewalk, etc, etc and nearly every other story of significance). I don't see many of them being concerned about misleading all of us. How many times do you think Matt Drudge has kicked himself for falsely harming anyone? Little Green Footballs..ditto--speaking of dittoheads, do you think Rush sweats it? What about Michelle Malkin?...Well, actually I don't want to stoop to her level! For all I know, Madsen and Leopold may be partially right or one completely right. I'm going to withhold judgement for the time being and continue to soak up all that is written and I'm in no hurry for the outcome. After all, I see that right now, Karl couldn't successfully organize a 2 car parade! Having the Admin twist in the wind is a good thing! I also know that had it not been for the Blogosphere (yea, I know I've spelled it two different ways), I wouldn't have known that the rationale for war was a fraud--nor would I have known about sooooo many stories that the CorpRATe Media would prefer that I not know (Downing Street Memo'S, Florida's phony Felon purge, Global Warming, Admin Assualt on Science, that Chavez is not the bogeyman that we are told, that Iran is decades away from having a nuke, etc., etc., etc.). The problem of Leopold and Madsen, to me, is our expectations not being met. Like consuming the MSM, I take everything in, with a grain of salt. We need not to beat up either Jason or Wade--but I would like to see a consistent way to spell Blogasphere. I've now spelled that term, the 3 different ways I've read it on this blog!! I also wouldn't give a Wingnut like Byron York, the credence that he seems to have been given here! Let's lighten up, store up the Champagne (or in my case Sparkling Cider), get the Tivo ready and wait for Fitzmas. I believe we won't be disappointed. For all we know, it could be better than all of us hope for. Ron Russell

    Re: Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:26:04 AM EST
    Cymro: at first I thought you were joking One bit of joking I was doing there was in saying: the fact that York wrote the book has no relation to his attempted smears of Jason Leopold, or to his desire to debunk Madsen or to defend rove. It is laughable to think there is no connection. The two events are linked by his mindset. Where we see two reporters trying to shine light on the circumstances of a serious problem - York sees a traitorous conspiratorial movement to destroy a great leader of men. Ahem.

    Byron York Debunks Madsen's Karl Rove Column | 32 comments (32 topical)