home

Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove Secret Indictment

Bump and Update: Rove attorney Robert Luskin sent me this denial of Truthout's report:

"It is insane and nonsensical, equal parts bizarre innuendo and alleged facts that do not square with reality or the American legal system. Truthout's stubborn nuttiness to the contrary, some times things are simply as they appear: Mr. Fitzgerald completed his investigation, reviewed the evidence, and concluded that it simply does not support a charge. There never was -- not for a second -- any secret meetings at my office, plea negotiations, secret sealed (or not so sealed, as the case may be) indictments, or last minute concessions."

*******
Original Post
New from Truthout: Still Insists Rove Was Indicted

New today from Truthout: They are standing by the key details of Jason Leopold's May 13 article reporting Karl Rove was indicted. It's a long explanation, but here's the key detail from a legal point of view:

Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.

The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office.

In the very next paragraph Truthout writes:

Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.

What does that mean? Are Truthout's sources saying the alleged last minute high-value concessions Luskin provided to Fitzgerald included cooperation against Cheney?

I'll be back with some analysis of this after I contemplate it some more. I've also asked Mark Corallo or Robert Luskin to respond, so check back.

In the meantime, I'd note that in a comment at America Blog, Jason responds to Sunday Times reporter Joe Lauria's WaPo commentary. Truthout says it will respond to Lauria's article on Wednesday at 5 pm PT. Since I'm mentioned in Lauria's article, I provide some background here.

< Nifong Responds to Newsweek in Duke Lacrosse Case | Safavian Found Guilty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 05:47:22 PM EST
    I don't believe it. Show me the sources.

    Jason said he would disclose his sources if he was lied to, not if he was wrong. He is standing by his sources, so he is not going to disclose them.

    I do believe it. So, is it that the VP is in his last throes? (Wasn't it the Friday before his hunting trip that the papers verified that he played a central role in engineering the leak? Ruffled his feathers, so to speak, and caused bad aim.) Tomorrow night: PBS's Frontline will have a piece about him and the CIA entitled "The Dark Side"--you all probably already know about it, but just in case not-- For the moment, and while we wait to learn more, bravo to Feingold and Kerry (and apparently Boxer too) for standing up and calling for a date to get U.S. forces out of Iraq. Take care, all. (I know this is only loosely connected to the original post, but loose is something.)

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dusty on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 06:01:34 PM EST
    I still hold out hope that TruthOut & Leopold will be vindicated and I am the biggest pessimist this side of the Mississippi. Its easy to tear them down now..how many will retract if something big comes out of this whole mess?

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#5)
    by zAmboni on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 06:01:51 PM EST
    So...is Truthout telling the truth, or are they exploiting gaps in the public record and information released by Luskin to craft a narrative that makes Truthout look good. It is hard to reconsile the Truthout article with the flat denials coming from Luskin in regards to the "indictment" and possible cooperation/deals with Fitzgerald.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#6)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 06:04:40 PM EST
    I don't believe it. Show me the sources.
    Sorry, that would compromise national security.

    HEY WTF !!! Suppose for one split second that this is true. Now, how can it be that the public is kept in the dark about the indictment of a public official? Furthermore, is he indicted for leaking the name of a spy, and he still has a security clearance? Take this a few steps further, what if this is Cheney or Bush we're talking about who have been indicted. Isn't the public allowed to know when the President or Vice President has been indicted for a pretty high crime? Isn't this a total end-around our Constitutional ability to impeach these criminals? What if it were the Secretary of Defense or the head of the CIA or DHS? WTF? One Seriously Concerned Citizen.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pol on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    Geralyn, why do you keep asking Luskin and Corallo for comment? Why should we believe either of them over Jason? Neither of them have sparkling credibility.

    If he had been indicted, the only way to nol pross the case is with a judge in open court. Or am I missing something here...???

    Pol, I'm trying to report both sides. This is a very serious matter and I think that's only fair. This is not just about politics, it's also about criminal defense, and I believe in giving everyone suspected of a crime a fair shake. Should it turn out that Rove flipped on others in exchange for immunity or dismissal of an indictment, to gain leniency for himself, that will change. I am no fan of purchased testimony, whether it is bought with money or promises of liberty.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimcee on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 06:23:23 PM EST
    IMHO, I have a hard time believing this story just keeps going in some circles. Grand Jury indictments are, by tradition an easy 'get' and given the time and energy spent on Mr Fitzgerald's investigations his decision not to indict Rove kind of says it all. One can always hope that there is some fantasy thing going on where this case will bring down the administration but alas, I think it is time for those that oppose Bush to plan for the future and not waste thier time on futile investigations of the past. In other words; It is hard to move forward when you are looking backwards.

    Make up your mind, Jeralyn. You said that people don't know when to quit, and that Rove skated, and that Luskin himself told you that there was no deal. Now TruthOut says there WAS a deal, and you're swinging in the other direction. Why is Luskin less believable now than he was when you spoke to him yourself?

    Option 1: Either leopold was burned by sources, or he just made stuff up Option 2: A truly complex sequence of events took place which resulted in an indictment that became a non-indictment. Occam's Razor comes to mind here.

    beemer, I said the same thing to emptywheel over at the next hurrah... Make no mistake, I think that Rove did what he is accused of doing, and that he should rot for it... I am not sure of the technical legalities or illegalities of what went down, primarily due to the apparent "declassify at will" authority that was granted (post facto??) to the executive by the executive... Regardless, both Jeralynn and emptywheel have started ruminating about "waiting and seeing" and thinking about Cheney... Are they both being guilty of hopefulness? Are they both falling into the trap of wishing too hard? Or is it the continuing lack of resolution to this issue, the continuing lack of official statements from the Spec. Prosecutor's office, and the ongoing lack of documentation on the part of Luskin et al. with respect to the "exoneration" of Rove? The way things have been kept hanging, it seems that there are still things that need clearing up, and the longer those issues hang, the more suspicious of the real situation people are going to get. Luskin, Corallo, and the various legal players...as well as their conduits into the press have not played straight once during this entire saga...so, let's see some documentation. Otherwise, hey! speculation is free, right?

    James Robertson, Has there ever been a case where a sealed indictment has been used to elicit cooperative testimony from the target of that indictment?

    I don't have my own blog, so the only cost I might incur is the wrath of fellow commenters. But I still believe the TO/Leopold stories. Yes, they may have been duped (although the implication I take from Ash's piece is that Fitzgerald's office benefited), and TO may have jumped too soon, but I believe the story. I send TO money when they ask, and I have a lot of respect for the work they do. Truthout has everything to lose. Everything. I'm with them.

    Thanks again for staying on top of this neglected story. Everybody else is either gun-shy or buying Turd Blossoms perfumed turds. Either way it's exactly what Rove wants to happen. The best way to handle anything that has to do with reverse psychology Karl is to question it and then take the opposite direction that these ass clowns are pointing you in Jason looks like a knight in shining armor compared to the rest of these friggin dirtballs

    Jeralyn, Has Truthout.org offered ANY evidence? Any documents? Any corroboration? Anything? My friends on the Left (and I join them) freak out when some elements of the media report "both sides" on the ID vs. evolution debate. "Pol, I'm trying to report both sides. This is a very serious matter and I think that's only fair." Not when one side has no evidence and zero credibility.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#20)
    by Pol on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 06:58:29 PM EST
    I'm with you, newtonusr. Something changed, but I believe Truthout had a scoop.

    Commissar, It's a fair question to ask - has truthout provided any evidence to back up their claims, other than tortured logic and speculation dressed up as assertion? Of course, that question can and should be turned around - has Luskin or Corallo offered any hard evidence? Admittedly, the bar is much MUCH higher for TruthOut than it is for the Rove Gang. But still, seeing that letter/fax would be awfully nice, having some confirmation from the Prosecutors office would be nice...

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#22)
    by cmpnwtr on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 07:08:38 PM EST
    Why in the world would you want to check with Luskin and Corallo?

    just a quick thought on the Lauria story. The fact that Corallo had Lauria's phone number is not indicative of anything: 1. You can google Lauria phone number: 2. If you read Lauria's post at HuffPost, he's pretty well known to both Bolton and his press attache so his number is likely in most press people's address books. Much harder to explain away Corolla knowing enough to bring up Lauria, unless Leopold (giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he did not pose as Lauria) slipped up and mentioned their recent meeting. I still believe there is more here than meets the eye.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#23)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    Occam's razor is BS. Truth is stranger than fiction. I'll wait for the Fitz to tell us when this is over. Until then, anything is possible. I hope that keeps the Machine Man up at night. Jason said he would disclose his sources if he was lied to, not if he was wrong. If you reread the archives, you find that this is true. And yes there IS a difference. This is something Leopold's detractors (including me at first) fail to see. Yet it's a very important point when it comes to protecting or nuturing sources. Lauria is too wrapped up with being "used" to contribute anything to the discussion. Instead he has a premature hissy fit. But he's in a no-lose situation. I gotta hand it to you Jason. You're either telling the truth or you are the most masochistic journalist I have ever heard of. I'm crossing my fingers for the former. For all of our sakes.

    Red Dan, As I am here in the Lions' Den of Lefties, I'll quote PZ Myers on evidence:
    If I claim there is a unicorn living in my backyard, but repeated attempts to observe and record it, or to find indirect evidence such as footprints or unicorn scat all fail, it is perfectly reasonable to provisionally suggest that the claim is false, and to insist that any further consideration of the idea will require positive evidence from the claimant.


    I am thinking about the news that Libby may be pardoned because Rove is exonerated. So Rove and Libby are pardoned ...move along, nothing here. Rove sure has gone all out since his "good news"

    Che:
    Occam's razor is BS.
    In general, it is a useful tool for selecting among alternative explanations for a set of observed facts. But it may not so applicable if many of the so called "facts" are actually carefully crafted illusions desgned to mislead observers. And whenever Rove is involved, you can be certain that such illusions constitute much of what you see.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 07:43:17 PM EST
    Che -- I gotta hand it to you Jason. You're either telling the truth or you are the most masochistic journalist I have ever heard of. I'm crossing my fingers for the former. For all of our sakes. I second that... and lean to the former. No one I ever heard of or met is that masochistic and likes the amount of smearing that Leopold has taken, and as he intimated the other day, he pretty much expected it:
    All the while I was just trying to report the truth. I suppose other reporters may have been skeptical of the information. And knowing what I know now I would have been much slower in my reporting. But I still would have reported this story all the same. I knew the risk.
    What he did with his original story about rove was about on a par with jabbing a cornered rabid animal with a pointed stick. And perhaps more dangerous. The response was bound to be ugly. Good work, Jason. Truthout too.

    Commissar, There is a difference between the two cases you conflate: 1) The CIA did send the case to DOJ. 2) The AG did recuse himself, and a Spec. Prosecutor was assigned. 3) The identity and status of Valerie Plame was revealed to reporters. 4) At least one very high level white house official perjured himself during the investigation. And so on. Therefore, comparing the speculation about the status of this investigation and its various ramifications (with significant amounts of supporting data that is available for perusal) to speculation about the existence of unicorns (with absolutely no data other than anecdotal tales) is specious. Let me restate for impact: I am highly sceptical about the prospects for this case to continue, much as I hope it will. However, the fact remains that significant confirmation in hard, verifiable format is not yet forthcoming from any quarter, so asking for that confirmation is a reasonable thing to do. It is reasonable to ask for confirmation from TruthOut. It is reasonable to question why no letter/fax has been released by Luskin et al. It is reasonable to wonder why there has been no announcement from the prosecutor's office. It is reasonable to wonder about the status of the investigation and its various targets, focii, and persons of interest. Next, I presume you are going to start talking about proving/disproving of negatives...so, bring it on!

    The best reason to stand by Leopold, TruthOut and their determined stance is because it has yet to be proven otherwise. There are too many realistic possibilities that fit their account and the contradictions are the carefully chosen words of Luskin and Fitzgerald. Those specific claims can be true and also allow Leopold/TruthOut's claims to be true. The Lauria story reads like a standard hit piece that's similar to what others (administration dissenters) have had launched against them. As for Corallo, he has numerous misstatements in his name during his service as Comm Dir for AG Ashcroft. He has a bit of an appearance of conflict of interest himself. This administration has taken secrecy and self protection to unprecedented levels. We have no idea of what all has been returned, filed, sealed and silenced in the name of national security, state secret or simply executive priveledge. It would be no surprize to learn that pardons have already been granted and sealed, to avoid the risk of trial testimony. The stakes are too high and those folks have the potential of serious charges in many areas. I think Leopold and TruthOut are doing the right thing and I'll support their confidence of events.

    So, the presidents most trusted friend and advisor, threatened with having committed a non-existent crime in a farcical case, decided to make accusations against the vice president, rather than be pardonned by the president. Uh huh. The Truthout people need to do two things: learn the first rule of holes and change the name of their site.

    If you ask me, Jeralyn is the only one making any sense here, and the only credible source on this matter is mysteriously silent. We could pretty well tell Fitzgerald was holding an indictment over Rove's head, and, really, unless a horse head was put in Fitzgerald's bed, Rove clearly caved. The only reason Fitzgerald is still silent has to be that he's still collecting evidence. The problem with this is that a traitor, Rove, has security clearance, still has his job. There really better be a big pay day after all this. And, yes, quit with the Occam's razor stuff already. This pile of excrement we call an administration keeps it so everybody always has to guess, which is un-American on its face and the Occam's razor saw just keeps coming out. Balderdash. Life does not play by Occam's rules.

    oldpuppymax, the case was neither farcical nor was the crime non-existent. The case was serious enough for the CIA to forward it to DOJ and pressure many different players into opening an investigation. The status of whether or not any crimes were committed remains unclear, as yet. However, perjury has been committed by at leaste on major player in the case, and that perjury was explicitly pointed out by the prosecurtor as being a prime reason as to why determination of criminality remains unclear. Ranting and raving serves no purpose other than to make you look foolish.

    non-existent crime
    You appear to be harking back to the Ken Starr era, when media-intensive investigations were held in search of such things.
    in a farcical case,
    Hmmm...is outing a covert agent on par with lying about a blow job?
    The Truthout people need to do two things
    And you obviously need to learn the definition of words like "farcical".

    I wouldn't jump on Lauria either. He is a fine reporter. An argument could be made that he got seriously spun. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimcee on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 08:37:42 PM EST
    Why is it so hard to believe that Rove was not indicted? The idea that he has turned 'state's evidence' against the Bushies seems to be the epitome of wishful thinking on the part of some. Why would Rove, who is a well-known sycophant for all things Bushie, flip against the adminstration that he helped create? As much as someone might hate Karl Rove and that he may be a pretty sleazy fellow doesn't make him the key to taking down an unpopular, lame duck president. Now is the time to consider the future and how to win back the legislative branch in 2006 and the presidency in 2008. Move On, if you get my drift. The past is not going to win future elections. Be positive, as 'positive' sells, be negative and you'll continue to be the minority party. Sucky but true.

    Rove would sing about Cheney and/or Bush just as soon as he was sure his ass was grass if he didn't, make no mistake about that. He wants to live to enrich himself further by ruining more lives. It's his reason to live. Ann Coulter and Karl Rove are soul mates. They will do whatever it takes to keep making it in their own nefarious fields. TAKE THAT TO THE BANK.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 08:51:31 PM EST
    Marc Ash --
    Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? [Kimberly Nerheim's] response to each question was identical: "I have no comment." ... If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?'
    It seems to me that as good an answer as any to Ash's question could be that Fitgerald has no need to 'anticipate seeking charges against Rove' because he has already indicted him, and has no need to seek more charges at this time.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 08:55:50 PM EST
    One good thing about the last rollercoaster is that now I am not so much on pins and needles any more. A pinch or two of salt can enhance any good dish. In any case, whatever the real story is, Luskin does not have to be lying for Leopold to be telling the truth. Most of us know that Cheney has to be in on it, if not the very ringmaster. Flushing out the truth is tough when you are up against seasoned Machiavellian Warriors (think Iran-Contra) such as the ones in today's WH. And as for the snark, 'a GJ will indict a ham sandwich', it's a fetid residue left over from the Ken Starr bj case that cost us a cool 40 million. Fitzgerald's case has not leaked and has cost $780 thousand. He's not about to indict a sandwich; he is a master chef. Ken Starr, a delivery boy in comparison, couldn't even get anyone to swallow his very skimpy, ever leaky, $40 mil lunchmeat snack. The MSM press, on the other hand, swallowed Starr's ham sandwich whole. They lavishly slathering daily doses of it on America's most respected front pages and nightly news shows. These days the MSM is focusing on white runaway brides and stuff like that. Come to think of it, the Starr bj case was about as deep. Today, a small internet magazine is caught up in a big brouhaha. It is one among the scant media sources even reporting the Plame story or investigating the lies leading up to the war. I'd say the MSM is the real problem here, not Leopold, TO or any of the few other sources writing about this stuff.

    I think the issue is not whether Rove cooperated, his lawyer has said all along he cooperated with Fitz and told everything he knew. The issue is whether Rove cooperated in exchange for a concession from Fitzgerald -- that he wouldn't be charged, or if Leopold is correct that there was an Indictment, that it would be dismissed. Team Rove maintains there was no deal, no discussion of deals and no concessions -- as well as no indictment. That means we won't be seeing a plea agreement. If the sealed indictment in case 128 was of Rove, a motion to dismiss it and court order dismissing it could also be sealed. Fitz said in the May 5 Libby hearing that he is not calling Rove as a witness and thus shouldn't have to turn over documents pertaining to Rove. Libby argued that he would call Rove so Fitz should have to turn over documents regarding Rove. See pages 24 to 26 of the transcript. When the Court ruled on June 2 (order here) there was no mention of Rove. I have not seen a copy of the June 12 hearing transcript but coincidentally (or not) that is the same day Luskin was advised by Fitz Rove would not be prosecuted. With Fitz not saying a word, it really is Team Rove's account vs. Truthout.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 09:20:36 PM EST
    Fitzgerald's case has not leaked and has cost $780 thousand
    Make that $723,000.

    Cheney was more than simply cooperating. He was reportedly 'charting a course' to Cheney's office by way of missing emails. From last March
    Rove said cooperating in CIA leak inquiry According to several Pentagon sources close to Rove and others familiar with the inquiry, Bush's senior adviser tipped off Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to information that led to the recent "discovery" of 250 pages of missing email from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. .... According to one source close to the case, Rove is providing information on deleted emails, erased hard drives and other types of obstruction by staff and other officials in the Vice President's office. Pentagon sources close to Rove confirmed this account.
    This alone brings up the question of how Gonzales, Card, Ashcroft and a host of others could not be charged/implicated for obstruction in the intial days of the investigation. Considering Card was removed earlier and Gonzales/Mueller threatened to quit (on a flimsy unrelated reason recently) also tied to sealed records, it seems the best answer is complete amnesty under seal.

    rumi, well and good...but is there a source for that other than RawStory? I am getting extremely gunshy, not to mention very very angry about the degree of wilfull self-blinding fantasy/wish fullfilment exhibited by several outlets like RawStory, TruthOut, and etc.

    Here's a source I consider reputable Karl Rove, Andy Card and the Newly Discovered E-Mails

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 10:29:03 PM EST
    In any case, whatever the real story is, Luskin does not have to be lying for Leopold to be telling the truth.
    I had imagined that Luskin parsed his words to be misleading but not lying. After racking my brains I cannot imagine how that could be true. Luskin said there was or is no indicment, period. Hard to imagine a loophole in that. TL is right either Luskin is flat out lying or TO is wrong. Both can't be true. This statement in the WSJ, before Cooper was to go to jail, seems a stretch at best.
    "If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting."


    Steve Clemons had the same verification but this link is to The Left Coaster. It appears the web account for The Washington Note has been suspended. The goal of a good smear is working if you now will not accept anything from TruthOut or Raw Story and presumably nothing except sources from MSM or very similar.
    Confirmed: Rove Has Assisted Fitzgerald's Investigation Steve Clemons over at The Washington Note has independently confirmed the story broken by Raw Story earlier today, that Karl Rove is cooperating with Patrick Fitzgerald's office by pointing Fitz to the 250 emails that temporarily disappeared from the White House archiving system which apparently involved Shooter's office.


    rumi, The sources for that Talk Left post are heavily dependent on TruthOut and RawStory. In short, they are the same basic links that you posted in your comment. I want more than that, because I no longer trust either TruthOut or RawStory. I think that one of the reasons why Jeralynn should be so upset about this who Truthout Leopold business is because she has spent so much time and energy relying on their reporting and their sources to build her investigative infrastructure. How much of what they wrote is fantasy and how much is not?

    I believe them. If you don't then nothing I post will convince you otherwise. I've followed sources from all sides and I've found TruthOut and Jason Leopold to as credible as any, moreso in many instances. To look at the deception used by this administration to achieve their goals, with total disregard for due process and humanity, do you honestly think justice will be found in the Plame grand jury? It appears the main goal of the Lauria story is to discredit TO, Leopold and associated sources. It's curious that one specific alleged Leopold 'transgression' cited by Lauria - Enron's crimes reporting - was recently agreed (with Jason) when a jury convicted Sjilling and Lay. This is crucial because Lay and others have a direct stake in this grand jury for false justification for the Iraq war. Another interesting recent development is the raid (by Gonzales DOJ) on Jefferson's office that involved crimes connected to BPL. This is a crucial area of alleged criminal activity by former Enron/USArmy Thomas White and the Bush administration. These are all common with reporting by Leopold and TruthOut. The diversionary discrediting of these sources aren't for Rove, they're to discredit everything they've done. Believe what you will.

    Reddan: Rove was a part of the WHIG Members:
    * Karl Rove * Karen Hughes * Mary Matalin * James R. Wilkinson * Nicholas E. Calio * Condoleezza Rice * Stephen Hadley * I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby


    It ain't over til it's over and that is all we really know right now.

    Thanks yodermon, I stand corrected. rumi, I am just tired of getting the same information recycled through various outlets only to find that the basic story is rooted in the same initial source. I was tired of it when it was all about the Niger forgeries and the aluminum tubes, and I am tired of it now. The whole point of this conversation is to address the believability of TruthOut's reporting. IMO they have lost a mountain of credibility - to the point where any piece of information that I read that has any of their fingerprints on it is going to require at least one independent, unconnected source. Circular arguments are losing arguments, and self-sourced, self-referential, circular confirmations are likewise ineffective. Wishing won't make it so.

    RedDan- I appreciate what you're saying. From my perspective, TO and Leopold have not been proven to be untruthful or deliberately deceptive. I see the possibility that all participants are essentially not lying and the answer is somewhere in between. I also understand the frustration in all of our available sources. I don't expect justice from our current system anymore. btw, I was a bit off on the White/Iraq connection when I said justification. That one was the Cheney influence for contracts for friends in Iraq, among other alleged violations.

    RedDan: I agree with you about TruthOut, but do remember it was Rove who told Novak that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. If that oleaginous swine has slipped the bonds of justice, there better be a really, REALLY good reason.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#54)
    by kipling on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 12:10:32 AM EST
    Did no-one learn anything after Rathergate? It worked that time, so who wouldn't try it again? Xymphora seems to have been proved right. http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/05/leopold-on-rove.html

    i hope jason is vindicated and cheney is sold down the river.

    Jason Leopold and the Truthout editors should out their sources when and only when it is established that those sources deliberately decieved. Thus far we know only that Rove's lawyer claims to have received a letter or FAX or phone call that seems to contradict what Leopold et al claim their sources said. But note that a grand jury can, for example, indict against the prosecutor's advice.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#57)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 05:21:49 AM EST
    Jeez, last week it seemed like everyone was all over me for demanding that Gold Bars show us the letter before I accepted the story that Fitz had cleared Rover. Disputation over whether Gold Bars had a duty to disclose or not, Occam's Razor and all that, all made out to seem like I and those demanding proof were bad people for demanding more than Gold Bars' uncorroborated word. I even mentioned that TO and Leopold would be having an article coming out 6/19. Let's suppose (I'm speculating) that Fitz' letter says something like:
    TO: Luskin, Esq. Re: 06-CR-0128 Dear Luskin: I don't anticipate prosecuting your client at this time. Fitz
    That's significantly different from a letter saying:
    TO: Luskin, Esq. Re: our telephone discussion earlier today Dear Luskin: Confirming our discussion earlier today, I don't anticipate prosecuting your client at this time. Fitz
    And both are significantly different from one reading:
    TO: Luskin, Esq. Re: our telephone discussion earlier today Dear Luskin: Thank you and your client for his cooperation. Confirming our discussion earlier today, I don't anticipate prosecuting your client at this time. Fitz
    And all of these are significantly different from one reading:
    TO: Luskin, Esq. Re: 06-CR-0128 Dear Luskin: Thank you and your client for his cooperation. I don't anticipate prosecuting your client at this time. Fitz
    And, to be sure, NONE of these reads like:
    TO: Luskin, Esq. Re: Rove, Karl Dear Luskin: Confirming our discussion earlier today, my investigation has exonerated your client. Fitz
    The last version is, of course, the one Gold Bars and Corallo are selling as the one they got. And, finally, none of these hypothetical letters says anything about "pending indictment against Rove", though the reference line to 06-CR-0128 could imply such. Though, since no one outside a few people not talking knows for sure, it's possible 06-cr-0128 is captioned US v. Cheney (or someone other than Rove). I think my demand that Gold Bars show us the letter before he is entitled to belief has not only been vindicated, but remains the only way anyone can or should believe anything he says about this matter. Without knowing exactly what Fitz said, no one should believe Rover is out of the doghouse. Of course, Fitz could have ensured Rover's being leashed in (And that Fitz' hand is the one yanking the leash) by merely making the re line 06-CR-0128, regardless of whether the defendant in that indictment is Rover or anyone else. A letter from Fitz coming out with that re line will immediately lead to a media firestorm (or should, anyway) that either (A) Rover has been indicted or (B) Rover rolled and Deadeye has been indicted. That kind of leash also puts Fitz in the driver's seat vis-a-vis timing his case, and keeping the Scooter case clean and free of Rove distractions.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#58)
    by Tom Maguire on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 06:46:07 AM EST
    I think my demand that Gold Bars show us the letter before he is entitled to belief has not only been vindicated... But you are not the target audience. Neither Luskin nor Rove is so optimistic as to expect that 100% of the public will believe them on this, or anything. But since Luskin has persuaded the NY Times, the WaPo, the LA Times, TIME, CNN, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox, he is probably not losing sleep over a few holdouts at TruthOut and Talkleft. And just for a laugh - the current version of TruthOut has a source so close to (presumably) the Fitzgerald side that we get details like this: The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Very live and timely, yes? But who has forgotten the classic TruthOut lead on May 13: Saturday 13 May 2006 Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove. During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning. Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, How can you be wrong about a fifteen hour meeting but right about a phone call following up on a fax? FWIW, here is the current TO fantasy on what transpired last May: Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Evidently the sources are less sure of the fifteen hour session. Well, mistakes were made - maybe Fitzgerald spent fifteen hours negotiating something else with someone else and they got confused. Hey, I bet he was negotiating with Dick Cheney - has anyone confirmed his whereabouts that day? And if someone offers the "secure undisclosed location" ruse, I trust TruthOut won't fall for it. That's the ticket.

    The first rough draft of history etc... I'm with Leopold, why not? Keep hope dangling.

    Well, if we may consider Bush a dictator, and accept we have been overrun by a silent, so far bloodless coup, then it's also worth reading CitizenSpook's analysis. It's rather interesting how Fitz's responses have changed regarding the investigation...

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#61)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 08:12:27 AM EST
    Dear Gold Bars: If it's all so nutty, bizarre, insane and all the other names you fling about, show us Fitz' letter. Let us see for ourselves the .pdf of the non-charge. Because all you look like now is a cornered animal, snarling and slavering, trying to defend the indefensible. Gold Bars, the way out of the corner, such that you don't have to snarl any more, is to show us the letter. Then you can take your cat to the vet or do whatever it is you do when not defending Rover. To move contexts slightly and simultaneously come close to quoting that great Republican hero, former Attorney General Meese, there's no need for people who are innocent to invoke their so-called rights against self-incrimination, and for the guilty, confession is good for the soul and should be encouraged. The same principles obtain here. If the letter Fitz sent you truly clears your client - he's innocent and should have no problem showing us that letter, the proof of his pure-as-driven-snow-ness. If, on the other hand, the letter is a confection of your (or your client's) making, then confession is good for the soul and should be encouraged. Show us the letter.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#62)
    by Tom Maguire on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 08:42:05 AM EST
    Because all you look like now is a cornered animal, snarling and slavering, trying to defend the indefensible. I think psychologists call this "projection". Does anyone else think Luskin is feeling any heat at all from his real audience, the MSM?

    Luskin must be feeling some heat from somewhere or he would not have deemed another denial necessary. In the meantime, we'll do what we do best...wait.

    I asked him for his comments on Truthout's article.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#65)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 09:03:37 AM EST
    responding to Tom Maguire:
    But you are not the target audience. Neither Luskin nor Rove is so optimistic as to expect that 100% of the public will believe them on this, or anything.
    I say, "little strokes fell great oaks."

    My comment on the subsequent denial was mistaken. I stand by the 'waiting' part, though.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 09:04:42 AM EST
    Does anyone else think Luskin is feeling any heat at all from his real audience, the MSM?
    The gas was cut off long ago. I guess the MSM is making sacrifices by conserving 'heat' for the war effort. Sounds like Tom is also retooling the conclusion of honest abe's famous quote to read 'you can fool most of the people all of the time'.

    I believe it. I mean people, he was Official A, anyone labeled as official A by Fitz gets indicted. In addition to that, Fitz was not willing to confirm that Rove is off the hook. His fifth and final trip to the grand jury was an act of despartation. The indictment is sealed to avoid media attention.

    I believe it. I mean people, he was Official A, anyone labeled as official A by Fitz gets indicted. In addition to that, Fitz was not willing to confirm that Rove is off the hook. His fifth and final trip to the grand jury was an act of despartation. The indictment is sealed to avoid media attention.

    In a strange way, it's clear: The two sides are saying diametrically opposed things. Since it's impossible to say who is lying at this point, we need to look at the possible risk/reward scenario: If truthout is totally fabricating this--as Luskin says--they are finished in this community. On the other hand, Luskin will go on and retain other, unrelated clients. In other words, lying in this case doesn't cost him as dearly. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that he has to convince other parties that Rove made no deal. This would involve precisely the type of comment he made above. The bottom line: We don't know what's going on. On the surface, however, Luskin has much more motivation to lie than truthout.

    A layman question. Or maybe just lame. Does a judge have to order this indictment sealed and if so, is that order public information? I am still simply baffled at all the opportunities Rove was given to "re-testify" till he got it right.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#72)
    by Tom Maguire on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 09:37:53 AM EST
    I say, "little strokes fell great oaks." Hmm. Mighty oaks from little nuts grow - but not all nuts grow up to be oaks. Sorry, that was a deplorable (yet irrestible-to-me) cheap shot. 'you can fool most of the people all of the time'. That may be the TruthOut strategy as well - its not my continued financial support that they are worried about. Anyway, I have been referred to an inspired bit of sleuthing at DU (which may have been posted here, but I missed it). The gist - case 06 cr 128, the "sealed v. sealed" on which TruthOut relies, was assigned its docket number on May 16 or 17 - that falls somewhat awkwardly *after* Rove's indictment on May 12. Possible explanations: (a)Fitzgerald carried the indictment around in his briefcase for a few days, then decided to submit it to the court clerk. (b) it relates to a different case. (c) The DU guy does not understand PACER, or dockets, or printouts. You make the call!

    If, as Truthout asserts, that their gov't sources continue to claim that Rove WAS indicted - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald ..." does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?" Is it possible for someone be indicted, and subsequently NOT arrested and NOT brought to trial? How would that work?

    Jeralyn, Have you asked T.O. (Ash) if their reporting could stand the test of a lawsuit against them(in a fair process, of course)? Have you asked Luskin if Rove will be pressing charges against T.O.? I'm wondering if these questions might lead us to who might be bluffing?

    Tom, I reported on the sealed cases and May 17 filing of case no. 128 last week here. Jason is well aware of the date case 128 was filed, as I shared that with him right after he published his May 13 article, having done the same research. Reading his May 13 article which contains a deadline for Rove to accept an offer, I think his position would be that the grand jury indictment wasn't filed with the clerk right away because an offer was outstanding to Rove. Indictments have to be returned in open court in front of a judge. (See rule 7 of the federal rules.) But there is nothing that says it has to go right to the clerk's office to get a number. The judge, could in theory, have been holding onto it pending his issuing an order on a motion to seal it. That argument falls apart for me not because of the dates, but because I think it would be improper for a proseutor to obtain an indictment only to engage in plea bargaining, with no intent of prosecuting if the defendant accepts his offer. And it would seem likewise improper for a judge to be complicit in such a scheme by withholding it from the Clerk's office while the parties negotiated.

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#76)
    by fireback on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    TL, If it is true that Fitz is after Cheney, I could see where unusual measures (if it is unusual) may be in necessary for Fitz. Also, when you use the word "improper," I wonder if your view may be slightly bias towards the defense - being you are a defense attorney. Would a prosecutor agree with your opinion regarding using this tactic, or is this a something that is debatable?

    Fireback, I don't know if a prosecutor would agree. Perhaps there's a former prosecutor reading talkleft who could weigh in.

    TL What's your take on the law regarding financial disclosure by judges? Isn't it required? Could one be completely redacted or sealed as is said R Walton has done?

    Re: Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove S (none / 0) (#79)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 03:11:43 PM EST
    TL: I agree on the sense of impropriety (and also that it's a gray area), but, aren't you inferring an intent not to prosecute that might have only arisen upon Rover giving up substantial information above and beyond what Fitz expected to get? I know, it sounds ironic coming from someone like me, having been a real harda*s on Rover's and Luskin's story (my stance on how they can make this tempest dissipate stands unchanged - show the letter). But, it is not inconsistent (nor improper) IMHO for Fitz to have gotten the indictment, advised accordingly, and then been presented with a pot o' gold from Rover such that reciprocity in dealing went beyond taking a plea to one charge and instead all the way to "I won't pursue". Comment?

    My uneducated opinion on the use of sealed indictments to pressure participation is that it's not that uncommon. I thought an indictment or presentment or bill could be filed with the court under seal but not be officially acted on until unsealing, with a withdrawl or similar possible at any time. It's my understanding that it's a recommendation by the panel/prosecutor to arrest and charge an individual with criminal activity. If the charges are valid and assumed to be pursued if cooperation isn't achieved, then it seems like a fair tool of persuasion. This could be the case of a sealed indictment being opened temporarily and partially read to a potential defendant. I don't think there are many restrictions on sealing these proceedings (National Security) in particular.

    They say you can't cheat an honest man. Probably not entirely true. More accurately, if not completely true, is that it's really tough to cheat a man who isn't greedy. How on earth could anybody fool T.O.? Simple. They, and you, wanted to believe so badly that they and you would take an anonymous note on a cocktail napkin about Emma needs bagels and make it into solidarity forever. That is the most charitable explanation of the TANG memos. Rove put on a wig and everybody thought he was Lucy Ramirez, because they so wanted it to be true. Of course, that isn't the way it went. Somebody who wanted to get Bush forged federal documents in the clumsiest manner imaginable and sold them to desperate believers. Including hard-eyed, experienced journos who'd seen it all. Ditto here, guys. But, let's presume that Rove did plant some anonymous note on a cocktail napkin listing bagels and can kraut to bring home to Emma. T.O. bought it. So, since they're so demonstrably gullible, shouldn't you take their next pronouncements with some salt? After all, they're easy as hell to fool?

    The silver lining is that Rove is now open for time in plenty of testimony appearances in Libby's trial...possibly others.

    Years ago I had two dreams about doing away with the same fat, balding, waxy little creep. The first one was pushing him out of the window of a monastery that hung at the edge of a very deep ravine. I woke up oddly elated. The second one was the people rioting in the streets and this same waxy little creep was trying to get us arrested, but I succeeded in convincing the police to lock him up. I felt really good about this dream too. For a while, the best I could do was say he looked something like Truman Capote... UNTIL I finally saw a picture of Karl Rove. That's him! That's him! I cried.

    Jeralyn: I will understand if you choose not to answer, but I must ask: What if anything do you personally belive about Truthout's reporting and commenting on the Rove indictment and the subsequent controversy concerning Truthout's credibility? specifically I wonder (but feel free to go beyond these questions): 1. Do you believe Rove was in fact indicted as reported? If so, (a) Do you belive it is currently pending under seal? (b) Do you believe it was subsequently dismissed and that action was also accomplished under seal? 2. Do you belive that Jason Leopold had multiple independent sources with direct knowledge of the indictment? If not, do you believe he had even source with direct knowledge of the indictment? If so, (a) Do you belive the source[s] lied to Leopold as part of A Rove orchestrated scheme? (b) Do you believe the sources had direct knowledge but were merely mistaken about what was witnessed? (c) Do you believe the source[s] told the truth but Leopold misreported what he was told? (d) Do you believ the sources told the truth and Leopold accurately reported what he was told? 3. Do you believe that Marc Ash and other editors personally cionfirmed the existence of sources similar in nature to those claimed by Leopold in his reporting and confirmed that these sources did supply Leopold with the information reported on May 12 and May 13?

    I'm not sure if this thread is dead and you haven't seen my questions or feel it is best not to get into what you belive or don't believe (which i would fully understand0. If you do see it, could you at least acknowledge?