Jason told me last night that after he got this e-mail, he called Corallo at home, which was the first number he had given me. (Interesting aside: Jason called Corallo after 10 pm Virginia time, the time Luskin had told me was inappropriately late to call someone in Washington.) Jason said Corallo answered his call (and was wide awake) and told him his article was false, that it bordered on defamation, that Fitzgerald was not in Washington on Friday and that Luskin was not in his office on Friday.
On Sunday, during their first conversation, Jason says Corallo changed his account from Luskin was not in the office on Friday to Luskin was only not in his office Friday morning. As Jason stated on the radio Sunday (and e-mailed me Saturday night) Fitzgerald arrived at Luskin's office at about 11:30 a.m.
During their second conversation Sunday, Corallo told Jason he wasn't sure that Fitzgerald had not been in D.C. Friday, it was just what he had been told.
4. Josh Gerstein told Jason that after speaking with Corallo he called Russell Samborn, Fitz's media guy, to ask if Fitzgerald had been in D.C. or Chicago Friday. Samborn reportedly said, "No Comment."
5. Jason said he is sure of his sources and he has multiple sources for his article. He continues to maintain there was a meeting at Luskin's office Friday with Fitzgerald that began around 11:30 am and that Fitzgerald gave Luskin a copy of the charges and said Rove had 24 hours (which everyone present understood to be business hours since the courts are closed on the weekend) to get his affairs in order. Jason's sources said the Indictment was already voted on by the grand jury.
6. Jason says he was told the meeting lasted 14 1/2 hours and Rove was present with Secret Service detail. Jason did not ask the sources whether Fitzgerald or Rove was there the whole time. In other words, Rove and his lawyers may have met for hours after Fitzgerald left to discuss an offer from Fitzgerald. Jason believes the offer was ultimately rejected by Rove.
7. Jason does not believe his sources are setting him up. He thinks Corallo is not being truthful with York and Gerstein.
8. Jason thinks the announcement of Rove's indictment will come any time after Tuesday of this week.
I'm wondering: Did Jason's sources understand the difference between Fitzgerald handing over a copy of the charges he said Rove would be indicted on if he refused the offer Fitz was making and an already voted-on Indictment? Was the "24 business hours" reference regarding Rove's window to finalize his affairs really a warning that if Rove didn't accept Fitzgerald's offer by Monday it would be too late for Rove to do anything but make arrangements to surrender on the anticipated Indictment?
From a legal standpoint (and keep in mind Jason, and for all I know, his sources are not lawyers) it makes more sense to me that Fitz would want a final answer from Rove Monday so that he could prepare his final argument for the grand jury on Tuesday and seek its approval of the Indictment Wednesday. Even if Fitz submitted charges to the grand jury last week for its consideration, it doesn't mean they actually voted on them. Perhaps they began discussion last week and continued deliberations until they met again this week.
I say this because legally, I just can't understand how Fitz would not be violating Rule 6(e) pertaining to disclosures of matters before the grand jury by sharing a returned (voted on) Indictment with Luskin before it was filed or unsealed. Unless, as one lawyer commenter in an earlier TL thread noted, Fitz also filed a motion and obtained a court order to share it with Luskin and Rove. I've never seen such an order in my practice, but I also don't see any reason why a Judge couldn't grant such a motion at the request of a prosecutor.
Then again, perhaps Jason's sources have it exactly right.
Bottom line: I believe Jason's sources told him what he reported. Were the sources accurate? Were they basically right but just mistaken on a few of the legal technicalities due to an unfamiliarity with the jargon? Time will tell. If they lied, Jason has promised to disclose their identities.
I would just caution everyone not to be impatient. Let it play out.
If the return of the Indictment is made public this week,then regardless of whether Fitz was at Luskin's office for one hour or many hours this past Friday, or whether the Indictment was voted on last week or this week, I think it proves Jason's sources, and his reporting, substantially correct.
On the other hand, should it turn out that Fitzgerald was not in D.C. at all on Friday, that he was not at Luskin's office and neither was Rove, then Jason will disclose his sources and we can discuss whether Jason was set up and why.
One last note on former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson's comment on Democratic Underground that Joseph Wilson received the same information as Jason: Some have questioned whether Larry really wrote the comment, or whether it was an imposter. I e-mailed Larry, and he responded, indeed it was him. He added,
Joe heard the same things but not from Jason. If these multiple sources are lying then I certainly hope Jason outs their a*s.
Background:
Update: 5/15: My subsequent conversation with Mark Corallo refuting the contents of Jason's article is here.
