home

Corallo, Leopold and Lauria

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 10:43:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

TL readers may remember that my first foray into investigative reporting occurred after Jason Leopold's May 13 article stating that Karl Rove had been indicted. After Byron York reported that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's media spokesman, denied speaking with Jason, I spoke with Jason and published his account of his conversations with Corallo. Then I spoke with Corallo and published his denials.

Corallo said Jason had misrepresented himself as Sunday Times (London) reporter Joe Lauria.

In Sunday's Washington Post, Joe Lauria details his encounter with Jason and conversations with Mark Corallo, which he says he learned about from my post on Corallo's statements.

Lauria is pretty harsh on Jason because of his past, which Jason has written all about in his recent book, News Junkie. He's also harsh on reporters who become the story rather than reporting the story. Lauria says Jason is all about "getting the scoop" no matter what. Jason believes he has done nothing wrong in Plamegate. He insists he reported what his sources told him and there were multiple sources.

I think it's time to move back to the heart of the story...is Fitzgerald done or are others still being investigated in PlameGate? When will we know who sang for their supper because had they not, they would have been indicted?

< Rove's 2006 Election Strategy | Holding Conservative Media's Feet to the Flame >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Corallo, Leopold and Lauria | 33 comments (33 topical)
    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 11:35:38 AM EST
    Ok, that did it for me. TL thank you for your role in ferreting out the facts.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    Lauria's piece is a bit odd. Competition? Lauria is an 'award winning investigative reporter for the London Sunday Times. His main point is that Leopold writes only to get attention. Why write about him then? WaPo who hates the blogosphere, as we have see with Howell's howling, publishes the piece. Competion? blogosphere no good, WaPo trusted source. To be fair Lauria has written two pieces at HuffPo.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#3)
    by LibraryLady on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    That article is really damning. Leopold pretended to be Lauria, used his number and represented himself to be working for the Sunday London Times and you feel Lauria is being HARSH? I can't imagine ever believing a word from Jason Leopold now, he is done.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#4)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    There are two stories here. The much larger one being, as TL notes, the investigation's progress and status at this point. The smaller, though still significant story is the impact of Leopold's methods, and the MSM and blogosphere's reaction to it. Incidents like this can be used in Rovian fashion to argue for more internet interference, or to marginalize so-called left wing web sites from the ever growing internet population. I'm sure the Republican Guard will be on this like white on rice. I wonder what the reaction would be if Leopold had been correct? Personally, considering the actions of Bushco, I think that he was still at a higher standard than anyone who would out a CIA agent. And I'm no fan of the CIA's methods either. Lauria says he's only met two journalists who would admit to being unethical. That's 2 who would admit to being unethical. And the war in Iraq continues...

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    My bias is that Leopold was used and abused by the Rove crowd, this is not unheard of.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    If Rove is in the clear,who is Official A in the Libby indictment? Did Rove give something up at the last minute to avoid indictment? Why hasn't the investigation ended officially?

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 06:26:05 PM EST
    Nope. That's it. Leopold and Truthout are dead to me. He once had me squinting until my eyes were bleeding at so-called proof of advance planning of seriously major administrative fiendishness, only to find no such thing as even amounting to casting suspicion. I forgave it because I thought his heart was in the right place. There is enough full-time scrutiny of ugly facts to get done without this noise. With friends like him, who needs enemies?

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:11:06 PM EST
    But why does Lauria spend so much space/time in his article yapping about inherent lack of credibility due to Leopold having been a cokehead? I see no space/time here spent yapping about Bush's lack of credibility due to his having been a cokehead. Is this some kind of, oh, I don't know, asymmetrical warfare?

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:32:50 PM EST
    I'm afraid the heart of the story is no one sang. Fitz caved. It's over. Libby's the stooge and Rove is set free to wreak havoc again. That's the plan.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:44:14 PM EST
    Ari Fleischer and Marc Grossman didn't sing? What about John Hannah, David Wurmser and Fred Fleitz? The latter three don't seem to be witnesses, but that doesn't mean they didn't get immunity agreeements or plea deals.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:52:03 PM EST
    Personally, considering the actions of Bushco, I think that he was still at a higher standard than anyone who would out a CIA agent. nuff said.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:04:42 PM EST
    Lauria's article sounds too much like the other standard hit pieces that have conveniently appeared in the past 6 years. To understand why, look at other articles he's done that the admin would wish to discredit. The standard plan has been to smear the messenger when they can't escape the message coming out. There have been far too many like this.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:35:37 AM EST
    TL, I think that you should be calling for Leopold to out his sources since you were one of the few blogs that I read that gave his story such play. You by the way were played. You should not let Leopold get away with it.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 07:17:26 AM EST
    I'd love to know what Jeralyn thinks is happening with this case, with all the remaining loose ends that she rightly mentions, etc....

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 07:41:40 AM EST
    Kim, The host would probably also like to know, as would we all. There is lots of room for speculation, but I think that's what is causing all the trouble in the first place.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 09:35:36 AM EST
    $ quote:
    I don't really know why Leopold may have pretended to be me to Corallo.
    emphasis mine.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    baltimoremom: TL, I think that you should be calling for Leopold to out his sources... Funny how all the people who keep demading that Jason Leopold reveal his sources would not demand the same of Bush: June 18, 2006, 12:31AM President, who pledged to reveal all, now calls it 'a chapter that has ended'
    In July 2005, Bush said he was eager to tell all, but the ongoing investigation made it impossible. Now that it looks like the investigation into Rove is complete, Bush has had a change of heart. "It's a chapter that has ended," Bush told reporters Wednesday. Later the same day, Bush made clear that he had no interest in returning to the matter. "I've made the comments I'm going to make about this incident, and I'm going to put this part of the situation behind us and move forward," Bush said. But what about those pledges to provide a transparent accounting of what happened?
    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:19:18 AM EST
    Edger, The difference being that Bush is the President & has Executive Privilege & Jason Leopold is simply a liar. But let's not let a simple thing like reality get in the way punishing Rove for being innocent & there being no crime committed. Joe Lauria's article quotes Leopold are lying or doing anything to obtain a story, that he'd do anything
    "...As long as it isn't illegal, he told me, he'll do whatever it takes to get a story, especially to nail a corrupt politician or businessman. "A scoop is a scoop," he trumpets in his memoir."
    The most telling statement follows
    "Other journalists all whine about ethics, but that's a load of crap."
    Normally I would say that it is one person's word against another, but since the Rove indictments never appeared, no matter how sure the left was of his guilt (w/o proof all along) the advantage has to go to Lauria. Do you suppose that I still owe Leopold an apology for calling him a liar? But I guess it's my fault for expecting a professional journalist to consider ethics something more than a "load of crap." Leopold is hopefully going to get what he deserves & I can't wait to hear the spin from truthout.com on Monday. Truthout, by the way, is just as guilty for allowing the story to go forward & then trying to spin it. Their only redemption is to fire Leopold & denounce & apologize for publishing the blatantly false article. The most telling thing of this entire episode is that how quickly people were to believe the worst about an administration that they personally don't like. Several posters above are still convinced that Rove is guilty, once again w/o proof or fact. How long has this been going on & the only indictment put forth doesn't even involve the crime that led to the investigation, it is about the investigation itself. Maybe those that insist that Rove is guilty owe him an apology, but you'd never demand that as insistently as you demanded me to apologize to Leopold for lying or as intensely as you assume Rove's guilt. I was at least armed by the simple fact the no Rove indictment appeared, nor is one likely to appear & that no one has been indicted for allegedly releasing Valerie Plame's name. So maybe instead of questioning my integrity, you should begin w/ those that assume "Bushco" or Rove are guilty w/o the benefit of any proof or indictments. If you don't, I must question yours.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    The difference being that Bush is the President and when he lies and manufactures justifications to go to war... ...people die. Thousands of American troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Proud?

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 12:13:59 PM EST
    edger, I won't bother w/ rehashing the idiotic arguments of the manufacturing of justifications or the lies, since both sides of the political spectrum made the same claims & justifications from 1991 up to a few months before the election season of 2004 - which you apparently have either forgotten or totally ignored - since the supposed lies were only 1 reason of many in the AUMF (authorized by both sides in Congress), since the Senate & House have both re-affirmed the actions in Iraq recently & most importantly, it has no bearing on the topic on hand. Am I proud? You bet your ass... but that is neither here nor there & it is a pretty convenient way to side step the questioning of your integrity & Leopold's. So how about the apology you owe to Rove or "Bushco?" Unless you have any proof of there being a crime committed or that Rove is going to be indicted... Nope, I didn't think so! Are you proud that you question my integrity while completely ignoring you own lack thereof, that you assume guilt w/o proof & then deny that you have nothing more than conjecture to fuel your accusations? I don't know you & this is nothing personal for me, my ire was aimed at another. It was for Leopold for lying & his lack of conviction for admitting it, for his relying on "un-named" sources & the blindness of people to accept & defend it or their assumption of guilt of the parts of President Bush or Rove w/o any proof. Remember, you began this by questioning my integrity, by demanding I apologize to Leopold for calling him a liar. I haven't seen any proof that he didn't lie & since his predictions, which he has stood by so far, haven't come true & will never come true. I have called him what he is & has be proven to be so far, a liar.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#21)
    by Tom Maguire on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 01:46:57 PM EST
    I think it's time to move back to the heart of the story...is Fitzgerald done or are others still being investigated in PlameGate? "Move back"? When did we leave? And why can't we cover the main story *and* continue to expect accountability from TruthOut (who promised something new for Monday)?

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    the President & has Executive Privilege & Jason Leopold is simply a liar.
    uhh, dude, since you brought it up, bush works for us and he shoulkd tell us the truth. lying about the reasons for going to war and lying about an institutional policy of war crimes is a bit different than having sources burn you.
    So how about the apology you owe to Rove or "Bushco?"
    Apology for what? rove and bush were proven to start a lying whisper campaign to release classified info to discredit a political opponent who told the truth.
    And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
    Libby testified that Bush OK'd intelligence leak
    The White House said two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak.
    Asked in June 2004 if he'd stand by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked, Bush replied "yes." [Bush Press Conference: Savannah, GA, 6/10/04]
    When the White House was asked specifically whether Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams or Lewis Libby told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands." [White House Briefing, 10/10/03]
    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 02:14:40 PM EST
    I haven't seen any proof that he didn't lie If you're looking for someone to prove a negative you're going to be waiting an awfully long time. On the other hand your own statements prove that you are a liar. The only justification you have been able to use for calling Leopold a liar are the words you put in his mouth. You have claimed that he said something he did not say, and then used the fact that he did not follow through on what you, without evidence, say he said, to call him a liar. What you claim he said, PMain:
    It was Leopold & the TruthOut editors decision to allow the statement that if Rove's indictment didn't happen, Leopold would reveal his sources... By postponing the release or by actually not releasing the information in whole, as promised...it shows them to be out right liars!
    What he did say:
    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."
    If you have some inside information proving that his sources knowingly misled him then produce it, or take your ball and bat and go home. You're too easy PMain. I'll leave it there and you alone. Taking you apart is like shooting ducks with broken wings. You are destroying your own credibility, and showing how little integrity you have. You don't need me or anyone else to question it.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    Uhh dude, Read my next post about the "lying" & the war. But I guess Bush having "his sources burn" him doesn't count as well right? But then again we know who Bush's sources are & that simply doesn't change the fact that Leopold & talkout published something that was a lie - you know the topic of the thread. The apology refers to when "edger" asked me to apologize to Leopold for calling him a liar & he questioned my integrity. Since Leopold did lie, Rove wasn't indicted as he proclaimed he would be, I had/have nothing to apologize for. I then asked him to apologize to Rove, since he hasn't been found guilty of anything, but egder insists he is guilty. I also pointed out that it shows a certain lack of integrity on his part for not doing what he demanded from me. As far as
    " rove and bush were proven to start a lying whisper campaign to release classified info to discredit a political opponent who told the truth"
    where are the indictments or proof so far? Karl Rove, Eliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby have been indicted for leaking anything, dude

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    Well, I suppose if your minds made up, your minds made up, don't let things you've said, or things others have said get in you way. We don't need no stinking facts around here, right PMain?

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    no indictment because bush/cheney say they declassified it, and like the cowards they are the let libby lie to GJ and judy miller do time for their cowardice.
    But I guess Bush having "his sources burn" him
    uhh, they didn't burn him, there was plenty of evidence produced by state and the fbi and the cia that he could have read, but incurious george chose not to. The whole reason they started the office of special plans was to cherry pick info that supported their already decided on war. Check out this pdf from the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq and how they viewed as WEAK most of bushco's claims about iraq before the war.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:01:27 PM EST
    edger, The justification I gave for calling Leopold a liar was that he claimed that Rove was going to be indicted, which never happened - unless you know something I don't. To say something is true, when it isn't, is a lie. Those that say something that isn't true are liars. What more proof do you need that his sources "misled" him than the simple fact that Rove was never indicted & that wasn't even from the "inside." By the way, I have never ever claimed his sources "mislead him", because it was more than a little apparent they did. Truth be told, I could care less what his sources told him other than the fact he used it to publish & justify a lie. While I'd love for him to reveal them, so I can call them liars as well, it doesn't change the fact that he published & stood by a falsehood. Now explain to me why Rove is guilty again & why you shouldn't offer an apology for assuming guilt w/o proof? Let me guess you have it from multiple, un-named sources that he is & we should just let it ride at that. Just like you insist we do Leopold & truthout. Since you are so convinced he is guilty, again let me ask... where is your proof, where are the indictments & finally how did Leopold not lie when he published that Rove was going to be or was indicted, when he wasn't? Please don't respond w/ Bush lied, people died again. Your silence & dodging the point that Leopold did lie, again, is proof enough for me about where you stand on things like integrity. Leopold is a liar & apparently you need to work on your aim, because you missed a supposed duck w/ a broken wing. But then again that is no real surprise coming from someone that assumes guilt w/o proof, demands an apology for someone who has lied & requires "inside" information when it is obvious Leopold was wrong about Rove being indicted. Now to be fair, if Rove is indicted for it, I will have no problem coming here & apologizing for assuming his innocence w/o proof of guilt. Quack, quack

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:04:18 PM EST
    edger & sailor, It is called commenting & staying on topic. You should try it.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:35:25 PM EST
    Now explain to me why Rove is guilty again
    see links above, which I notice you never provide for your fantasies.
    To say something is true, when it isn't, is a lie.
    Thank you for supporting our position about bushco.
    It is called commenting & staying on topic. You should try it.
    just like a wrongwinger, deny the truth and then accuse others of doing what you are engaging in.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 03:38:18 PM EST
    You're hopeless, PMain. If someone tells you in good faith that something will happen, believing what they told you to be true, and you report what they told you, it does not make you or your sources liars if what they told you will happen does not happen. If someone else calls you a liar if the thing you reported does not happen, they are lying. Even you can figure this out. Well... I would hope so... but I must admit in your case that hope appears to be unfounded.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 02:46:02 PM EST
    edger, By "hopeless," do you mean correct? If someone tells me in good faith that a Senior Advisor to the President is going to be indicted, I expect him to back it up w/ something more than some un-named sources & conjecture. I also expect for it to actually happen. This man "LiarPold" is a professional journalist, which lately doesn't mean too much, admittedly. The funny thing is you wanted me to apologize to him because I called him a liar. He did lie, unless Rove was indicted & it wasn't reported. Unfortunately Fitz has said that Rove won't be indicted. Now today truthout itself has questioned Leopold & I quote
    ...This is not a defense of Leopold, whom we have called on to name his sources, as he promised to do if his story turned out not to be true. He clearly seems unconcerned with journalistic ethics, to put it mildly.
    Rove not convicted & the statement "as he promised to do" hmmm. Now tell me who is the liar edger. Why don't you apologize for publicly questioning my character? Now the site Leopold published from is questioning his integrity, has said his information was not true - in other words a total lie. Where is your integrity? Don't worry I won't bother in demanding an apology from you, I have already shown you, like Leopold, have no integrity or character. But unlike you & your accusations regarding my truthful, un-reputed statements about Leopold's & your personal integrity they are not "unfounded" but based in fact. Quack, quack, quack

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dusty on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 06:26:41 PM EST
    When Fitz formally ends the investigation and Rover isn't indicted I will be more than happy to apologize to him via my blog. Until then, I wait for the final shoe to drop. I also do not judge Leopold and TruthOut until its over and done.

    Re: Corallo, Leopold and Lauria (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 07:11:22 PM EST
    dusty: I also do not judge Leopold and TruthOut until its over and done. I couldn't have said that better myself. As I said here last Thursday I think Jason Leopold wrote the truth as he believed it to be, and probably the truth in fact. I also suspect some machinations we know nothing of now happened to change the circumstances, and with today's article from Marc Ash it more and more looks like that may well turn out to be the case. The implications of the probable deluding of the whole country as a ruse to fire up public support for an illegal aggression against a country that was no threat to the US may have Fitzgerald trading with rove for bigger fish. Cheney?

    Corallo, Leopold and Lauria | 33 comments (33 topical)