home

Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:13:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm very glad to see that Marc Ash of Truthout yesterday published a "stand down" on Jason Leopold's May 13 article reporting that Karl Rove had been indicted.

Yesterday, most Mainstream Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. As an example of the supposed letter's contents, TIME Magazine stated that, "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said or wrote, 'Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"

Truthout of course published an article on May 13 which reported that Karl Rove had in fact already been indicted. Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications.

Ash also, appropriately in my view, defends Jason Leopold:

Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically.

Please keep in mind that over the years we have reported on many examples of individuals being scapegoated in crisis situations by superiors seeking cover from controversy. Truthout, however, does not do scapegoats. And we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold.

I continue to believe that Jason's sources told him what he reported but that they were wrong. Was it a burn or just misinformation? I have no idea.

If the information provided to Jason and Ash came from previously reliable informants who passed it along in good faith, then, as I said in my updated post on outing sources, there is probably too much legal liability and journalistic fallout for outing them. There are several comments from Jason in that thread for those who want to hear what he has to say.

Where I disagree with Ash and with some in the liberal blogosphere who want to see the letter faxed by Fitz to Luskin, is that I don't think Luskin has to produce the letter he had received from Fitz. His obligation is to look out for Rove, not the rest of us who are seeking the facts. Fitzgerald is the public servant. If the letter should be disclosed, then he should be the one to do it. But, probably, the letter is none of our (the public's) business at this juncture because while it is germane to Libby's trial and part of discovery in that case, discovery generally is not in the public record.

If Luskin had stated something untrue in his press release, Fitzgerald would have corrected it. He has remained silent. That may be because the investigation truly is ongoing. Or because he's decided Rove will be a witness in the Scooter Libby case. If it's the latter, we may see the letter yet, attached as an exhibit to a filing by Libby attacking Rove's anticipated testimony.

Fitz's silence means Rove skated. Jason's article was wrong, although well-intended. I'd rather know who and why Jason's sources were lied to. Was it an organized burn? Was someone being set up with information to see if it would end up with Jason?

< House Passes Symbolic War Resolution | Pentagon Study Confirms Detainee Abuse >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article | 38 comments (38 topical)
    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    TL: You and I have to part company on this, at least in part. I do not think Leopold or TruthOut did anything wrong and, if they did, it was minor. My nose tells me they were set up with false information. Whether that information came from sources who got it wrong, or sources who were deliberately fed wrong information, or sources who transmitted incorrect information as a part of an organized burn (or leak-tracing enterprise), it appears they reported what they got, and I'll give them credit for trying to do it responsibly. To their credit they had enough self-awareness to recognize the possibility that someone would attack their credibility on the basis of their history, but regardless had enough confidence in their sources to go ahead and to distinguish between "what we know" and "what we believe". And enough courage to come out and stand down. (Unlike the AP on the Harry Reid Boxing tickets smear from a week or two ago) Where I part company with you is on Luskin's duty to disclose. In the ordinary case, your conclusion that he has no obligation to disclose beyond what he's already said is quite correct. This is not the ordinary case. Fitz is not the only public servant here - last time anyone checked, Rover gets a government paycheck, too. If ever there was someone who needs to show the paper, Rover, as a public servant involved in a filthy mess, owes the public that. His history of trashing people deprives him of any entitlement to the benefit of the doubt here (and I'm not talking about his presumption of innocence in the courtroom where we're led to believe he won't be at the defense table anytime soon - he still gets that). If the letter is inevitably going to come out in a filing, let's see it now. I may be creating a class of one here, with Rover being its sole member, but he is sui generis as a dealer in political destruction and deserves to be treated the same as he has treated others.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:59:53 AM EST
    Treason happened in this White House. It's long past time we should have the culprits behind bars. Judith Miller helped delay it this long. Rove's parsing words delayed it further. It seems to me Fitzgerald should come out now and tell us if the investigation is still ongoing, or if he's going to leave it at Scooter and call it a day, so we can know just how dirty they're playing it now.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:04:23 PM EST
    scribe - Well said, as usual.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patrick on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:07:14 PM EST
    Jim, It's like stolen elections....You can lead a horse to water.....

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:08:34 PM EST
    Scribe I agree, except if Rove were a responsible public servant he wouldn't be Rove. I am sure that he has contempt for the public and believes he is working for Bush and his elite. The public can take a hike as far as he is concerned, he feels no obligation there. For him a Straussian philosophy justifies all his nefarious acts as necessary evil exercised in the name of patriotic duty.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    Who cares if Leopold was setup, it is irrelevant to the discussion & doesn't forgive Leopold & TruthOut for not keeping their word. It was Leopold & the TruthOut editors decision to allow the statement that if Rove's indictment didn't happen, Leopold would reveal his sources saying that Rove was indicted or that an indictment was coming. I am sure that that went through the same quality vetting processes that his sources should have went through before publishing the information. By postponing the release or by actually not releasing the information in whole, as promised, Leopold & TruthOut are at best showing how blatantly incompetent their journalistic skills & integrity are & at worst it shows them to be out right liars! I guess the TruthOut response is going to follow that the same "24 hour" period that the Rove indictment did. The irony is that while Rove had the guts to wave his 5th amendment rights 5 times, it appears that TruthOut & Leopold are going to cower behind the assertion of protecting their sources - when they have already shown publicly the Leopold wouldn't if the information proved false. One has to appreciate the difficult position they are in... if they release the sources, no-one will trust them & if they don't, they are liars & no-one will trust them. Either way, they've shown nothing but pure incompetence that goes well beyond the publishing of some questionable material.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:11:21 PM EST
    As for filth, I again ask anyone for proof that Wilson proved that Bush's now famous 16 words were in error.
    link

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    Pat - Dosnt that bit get uncomfortable after a while?

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    Soc - You're trying to explain to Torquemada that earth orbits the sun.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#11)
    by Patrick on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:14:40 PM EST
    Jon, No...

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    Jondee I know but its a great link anyway

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    Scribe & Squeaky, Rove is not a public servant in the strictest since. He is an advisor to the President & the Executive Office & therefore not subjugated to the same rules as Fitz. It all follows under the "Executive Privilege" portion of the Executive Branch. Which goes to show how important & telling it was for Rove to waive the 5th. If only those opposed to Rove could show the same courage, especially Leopold & TruthOut.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    This investigation is moving at a pace that is unnacceptable. If we practiced medicine the way the legal profession works here, there'd be corpses littering the hallways. This is evidenced in Iraq. If there's no special prosecutor, then Fitz needs his desk cleared of all other cases. This isn't an average investigation. Lives are being lost over this issue, as Jason Leopold pointed out the other night on this site. I agree. In the meantme, let the trolls gloat.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:25:00 PM EST
    Don't let Jim hijack the thread. This is about Rove and Truthout, not the 16 words. His comment is going to be deleted. He's free to discuss the issue on an appropriate thread.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#16)
    by Patrick on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:31:07 PM EST
    Hey TL, Have you declared a winner in the Rove indictment contest yet?

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#17)
    by Richard Aubrey on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    Okay. This is interesting. But confusing. Seems to me that if a journo thinks he's been hosed, as opposed to having a source which was honestly mistaken, outing the source is the least he could do. A warning, at least,to others. After all, if you want to get Rove&Co, and if they're the ones who set you up, the setting up could be another source for years of breathless anticipation of frogmarching. Besides, this kind of dishonesty ought to be punished. That said, wishing doesn't make a court case, and wishing was all you had. Fitz had, I mean. Hard to say what lives are being lost, "being lost" being a present tense. You might, if you got really, really drunk on Ripple, convince yourself that you could make a case that somewhere secret agents would die--which is now a bad thing as opposed to when the left loved Agee--if Rove isn't indicted for getting his stories wrong. And if he is indicted, the agents are safe. That would take a lot of Ripple. But, anyway, if I remember my youthful Rippletrips, it precluded the need for Metamucil. Remember the mantra: If the stories differ slightly, it's perjury. If they're identical, it's conspiracy. Remember also, just because you don't admit to each other than you're lying doesn't mean it isn't obvious to the rest of us. Lastly, unidentified sources, which are not identified even if they were a set-up, may be different on the inside of the journalistic process. On the outside, the difference between that and "I made this up." is invisible.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    I saw a note at the bottom of Ash's post that they were going to have an update on this story/their position on Monday 6/19. If ever there was a demonstration of just how serious this story and its implications are, it is the machinations we are witnessing from all sides.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#19)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    PMain - whence comes Rover's paycheck? From the public treasury, no? He gets a gov't paycheck, he works for you and me. He works for you and me, he's a public servant. QED On the Leopold and TO won't burn their sources - if they never do it, that's one thing. If they're trying to sort through a thicket of (probably) conflicting legal, moral and ethical issues to get to the place where they can be fully open with the readership, that's a very different thing. I see TO has posted a note saying "more follows later, in detail, Monday 6/19". So, let's give them the chance to sort it all out. (And, no, that's not self-contradictory, because all Rover and Gold Bars have to do is show us a copy of Fitz' letter. That's a hell of a lot simpler than what TO and Leopold have to work through.)

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    scribe, Members of the CIA, the US military & the FBI are also paid by the public treasury, does that mean that their work is publicly available on demand? Teachers at your local school district are paid by the government as well. Try going down there & getting a complete copy of all of their e-mails or communications, like you can for most elected officials. Rove works for the President, but is paid by taxpayers - though not held accountable to public in the same ways. He does not have the same legal obligations that "Fitz" does, much less what a member of Congress does as well. quod erat demonstrandum, yourself As far as Leopold & TO goes, they can simply release their sources as they said that they would. Something that is a lot simpler than relaying a 2nd party fax the falls under legal evidence rules, the information is their's from the get-go. The lack of preparation for the "thicket" as you call it, shows only their lack of integrity & pure incompetence on their part. The benefit of a doubt was given after the first "24" hours that the supposed indictment was reported to appear & didn't, everything after that is pure spin or total lies.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    PMain, you say: Leopold & the TruthOut editors decision to allow the statement that if Rove's indictment didn't happen, Leopold would reveal his sources saying that Rove was indicted or that an indictment was coming. You then go on to say that Leopold is a "liar" for not doing what the words you put in his mouth say he said. Jason Leopold posted his own response to accusations like yours here on TalkLeft 2 days ago:
    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."
    It is quite clear from your posts here today PMain who is lying. Do you have the integrity to aoplogize to Leopold?

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but I think Leopold and Truthout should just stand down... PERIOD.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    edger, Why would I apologize? Leopold said there was an indictment or at least one pending over a month ago, there wasn't one within a 24 hour period, much less within a 24 day period & there isn't one now. He is the liar.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#25)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    Sorry about the length of the prior comment - if I'd preview it, it'd disappear. Also, my parenthetical about spelling "waiving" should have been omitted. My bad.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 02:37:17 PM EST
    Scribe - Rove has not been indicted. He owes you absolutely nothing.
    rove might not, but luskin, his attorney, opened the door by making a public statement. in so doing he placed the burden on himself to produce said letter.
    As for filth, I again ask anyone for proof that Wilson proved that Bush's now famous 16 words were in error.
    of course, mr. wilson never made this claim at all, but you know that already. as well, this has nothing at all to do with this thread, but you know that also.
    And remember that Bush did not say that Saddam had purchased....
    true enough, he said he'd attempted to purchase, of which there was also no substantive evidence. again, not germaine to this thread, but you felt it necessary to try and divert our attention. lol jim is nothing if not the classic hobgoblin of consistency, shaping his little mind.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    He is the liar.
    He is by the standard many here use to judge the President. I'd be willing to say believed something that turned out to be incorrect.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#28)
    by beefeater on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    Didn't Larry Johnson (No Quarter) vouch for Leopold also? I can't seem to get to his site today. Truthout, Leopold/Pitt and DUmmieland have become so irrelevant that DUmmie FUnnies has even turned to the Kossacks for humor. It's all getting so easy.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#24)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 02:53:34 PM EST
    PMain You argue he is not "subjugated to the same rules as Fitz" which is both a non-sequitur and erroneous. It is a non-sequitur because the rules that apply only to Fitz or to both Fitz and Rover (about which more anon) are irrelevant to the discussion. What is pertinent is that Rover's mouthpieces are trumpeting his having received a letter exonerating him, but they won't show us the letter. Fitz has no duty to do that, though TL says Fitz should be the one to show it. I say that because Rover and Gold Bars are the ones who would benefit from showing us the letter so they should do so. As it stands now, all we have is their word and, as far as I'm concerned about Rover, that and $2 will get a cup of coffee.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 04:08:40 PM EST
    PMain: edger,...Why would I apologize? Why, indeed. Just move your goalposts and try to divert away from what you said. I see that integrity is not a quality you feel that you have any need for...

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#31)
    by Patrick on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 04:55:01 PM EST
    Narius, So you've never been wrong before? Wow, must be nice to be perfect. Look, there's no proof JL was lying so saying he did is without factual basis, and just opinion. Fine to have, but it don't make it true.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 04:58:12 PM EST
    Am I the only one here who doesn't know what these two sentences mean? "As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications." This doesn't admit error. It just steps back from the discussion.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#33)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    Well, he is either incompetent or a liar or both. Take your pick.
    gee narius, by that standard, your "dear leader" is a liar, with respect to, among other things, the presence of wmd's in iraq. of course, the big difference here (your politics aside), is that no one died from jason leopold's mistake. sadly, the same can't be said of your buddy gb's.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 07:37:02 PM EST
    So do Leopold and Ash get back the 5000 dollars in pennies they threw into the "Oh please, please, please let Rove be indicted" wishing well?

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    I have a friend who is convinced Fitzgerald had a horse head put in his bed. That would not have been beyond Rove or his compatriots when pressed so hard. I really would like to know if this investigation is still on. Surely Fitzgerald would not object to making that one little comment.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:50:40 PM EST
    Whether or not Leopold was wrong has nothing to do with Rove's guilt. And as a weak countertactic, it's grown really, really stale. Rove apparently told the FBI the truth and lied to you, me, and the rest of the public about the smear campaign he was conducting to try to cover the OVP treasonous leaks. He should be fired in disgrace.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 02:42:09 AM EST
    TL: Would you please explain what would be the legal liabilities of revealing the source(s) of a journalistic report? Though the point is now moot vis-a-vis Leopold, it would be important to know your legal analysis on that, in general terms. I have never heard of any legal liability for revealing news sources. I can't imagine what that might be. But if I'm wrong about that, I would surely like to know about the what and why. Thanks.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 06:00:17 AM EST
    Scribe wrote:
    He gets a gov't paycheck, he works for you and me. He works for you and me, he's a public servant.
    If he had been indicted he would have been personally indicted, not as Rove, Public Servant. And his defense costs would have been borne by Rove, Private Citizen, not by the Government. BTW - If I remember correctly after the various Clinton SP investigation the SP was required to write a report. That requirement was removed with huge Demo support. (Could be wrong, on my memory.) I wonder why?? ;-) Agent99 writes:
    Surely Fitzgerald would not object to making that one little comment.
    He probably understands that there is no such thing as "one" little comment, and that the press would just go nuttier. cpinva - TL is concerned that subject would hijack the thread. See you later. And beyond Rove and adherence to legal rules and ethics, why does Luskin owe anyone anything? He doesn't. et al - This is just another demonstration of the problem with unidentified sources. If the information helps your side, it's okay. If the information hurts, it's not. All of this BS about "ethics" boils down to exactly that. The guidelines should be: If the information proves correct, I will protect. If the information is not true, I'll identify you. TO and Leopold should be, must be, livid, or else think that this whole thing is a clever ploy by the SP. If right they will enjoy another 15 minutes of fame. If wrong their time on the stage is comning to an end.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:09:54 AM EST
    I have never heard of any legal liability for revealing news sources. I can't imagine what that might be. But if I'm wrong about that, I would surely like to know about the what and why. I think it's more of a professional liability. In many cases it's the desire to protect your career, not the sources, that supercedes writing the truth. See J. Miller. Unless, of course, the truth is more important than your career. It's a gamble (see Woodward and Bernstein). Fortunately, Mark Felt gave them the trump card. In J. Leopold's case, he seems to be at an impasse journalistically, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out - in 50 years at this rate.

    Re: Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:22:39 AM EST
    Hmm most interesting discussion and I have my own thoughts about this not by the playbook situation. But mostly I hope to give Jason Leopold the opportunity to respond to some *burning questions* on this topic. (He promised answers this weekend - and I will post them.) *smile*

    Truthout "Stands Down" on Rove Article | 38 comments (38 topical)