FDL: Fitzgerald Investigation/Libby Case update, Part I

From Christy Hardin Smith...

There have been some new filings, some news bits and pieces, and a whole lot of speculation and other pieces of information that need parsing from the continuing Fitzgerald investigation and the Libby prosecution. What better way to spend my Sunday morning that putting together a whole mish-mash update for everyone, I say.


Interesting comments to read too...
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/21/fitzgerald-investigationlibby-case-update-part-i/



Edit to add: Firedoglake.com is slow today

Edit to add new link: http://tinyurl.com/ljxs2

Edit to add link for Part II: http://tinyurl.com/gmqzk

did not work (X3) for me.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/21/fitzgerald-investigationlibby-case-update-part-i/

Here. I'll post some of the text:



Much more at link if you can get it to work.

just go to the website
http://firedoglake.com/

Have not been able to log on. Database server is apparently down.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/21/115826/135

Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story
By Marc Ash,

Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked.

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.

Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.

We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)

snip

Faith's for readers, like me. The news business has to run on facts, which I prefer over faith but have a hard time obtaining without news organizations with reliable sources. TruthOut's lowered itself from a news organization to the status of just another bunch of hopeful internet people to present a smaller target for critics. I'd have preferred TruthOut fight this like a news organization, not taking refuge in the "Net Community".

Besides, I think it's plain that even if they know some things that are facts in the real world, they don't understand those facts or know how to place them in context.

Edit: In other words, I expected more from TruthOut than truthiness.

day so maybe that's still a factor.