Truthout Stands By Indictment Reports (TPM)

Rove Cleared in Leak Probe, Lawyer Says; Truthout Stands By Indictment Reports
By Justin Rood - June 13, 2006, 7:54 AM


But Truthout.org -- the one publication to report, repeatedly, that Rove was definitely going to be indicted -- isn't buying it.

I reached Truthout editor Marc Ash on his cel phone this morning. "I wasn't aware that he had said that," he said of Luskin's announcement, but insisted that Truthout was "absolutely" standing by its earlier reporting.

"We've done a lot of work on this story, we've talked to a lot of people," he said, "and some of the people who provided information for the story are absolutely in a position to know."

So if Truthout's reporting -- by correspondent Jason Leopold -- is correct, is Ruskin lying? "Robert Luskin's allegations are in the best interest of his client, not necessarily the press," Ash said. "I think that the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000889.php

I mean, it was bad enough when they were the only media outlet in existence that was slinging this story. With this latest news -- from Luskin but not denied by Fitzpatrick -- they're just looking worse and worse. You gotta give them credit for tenacity, but you've got to know when to cut your losses and admit your mistakes.

more than I trust the folks fighting in the trenches with us :eyes:

I eagerly await the next letter absolving one of the Bushites of whatever we've accused them of.

who told Luskin Monday that Rove wouldn't be indicted. If Fitz didn't tell Luskin that, and then Luskin went out and claimed it, he could be disbarred. Face facts -- Rove won't be indicted. Nor has he been in this matter. The longer TO keeps holding on to this stinker, the more they look like idiots.

Fitzgerald's website. Only then will I believe Luskin.

that Luskin is inventing this out of whole cloth, at the risk of disbarrment and possible legal action against himself, than Fitzgerald not indicting Rove?

lied in the past. Until I see this on Fitzgerald's website, it's more spin.

attorneys can't do that. If he lies about this, there'll be serious repercussions for him.

For the record, though, I'd certainly like to see whatever document passed between Ftitzgerald and Luskin as well. The only point where we disagree is that, even without that document, I believe it very likely that Rove has not and will not be indicted. Looked at objectively, the weight of evidence stands on that side.

Truthout did NOT say that rove was GOING TO BE indicted.

Truthout said that HE WAS INDICTED - on may 12th, if memory serves.

There's a WORLD of difference.

Or have I made an error somewhere?

not making any allegations of his/her own

EDIT: Added to subject.

As I said in another post, my guess is that the theory is that Rove actually was indicted, but to save him, Bush and his evil secret Skull and Bones conspiracy have sprayed the entire US with memory erasing chemicals (thus explaining the large number of "chemtrails" visible in the sky) which rendered us all susceptible to mind-control brainwashing which implanted new memories in us, therefore we are all deluded into thinking that Rove was not indicted, when in fact he was; and further, its actually 2009, Bush invaded Iran and fought a 2 year war there, and Rove has served his time and gotten out of prison.

I stand with, on, for, under, up, and in reference to this story, with every fibre in my being.

Welcome to DU, Mr. Orwell! Which side of this war, that we have always been fighting Iranasia, are we on? ;>)

I think you have the credentials.

:evilgrin:

Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

Am I wrong?

The NYT article mentions a letter but no other news stories do and so far no one has seen this letter.

these people make me dizzy.

My only wish, is that if an official letter is produced, Leopold outs his sources.

if TO and Leopold were intentionally screwed over -- which may be the case at this point -- he should burn his sources. Fuck'em.

I think that online news sources have enough problem trying to be legit, I would think that outing sources wouldn't be a step in the right direction. I could be wrong. :shrug:

completely destroying their credibility, and get away with it?

If Leopold doesn't come right out and say who his sources are, he should at least leak them to another online paper or something.

I will be honest at say that I have no real idea how the journalist world spins. I wasn't trying to make a big stand against him not outing his sources, I am just going by what my opinion is.

If outing his sources would have little impact on the online news community, then I might feel a little different about it. I just think that once you get "reporters" outing sources, it could possibly prevent other sources from supplying information.

credibility is shot.
on edit, add: they don't even qualify as "sources" if they lied - they're mere liars - so what would be the harm of outing them?

Ash would've been better off saying nothing. Doesn't he realize the more he plays these games, the dumber he looks?

It adds to the mess - but is important - TO hasn't updated their site yet - so this is important.

But, good or bad, I continue to offer up everything I can find...

I have hesitated a mighty long time over certain stories/articles. But information is information. Knowledge is power. And you are always there with the most current stuff.

We love the messenger.

We got a few problems with the message, though. :)

you are a vital piece here at DU

:thumbsup:

Pitiful.

They are becoming (if they had not already done so) a laughingstock.

You are probably right. But something I've realized-as those with much more far left positions than I have believed far longer-is this country is a laughingstock itself. I was born when Kennedy was president. The facts of his death are a lie. From that on down to this moment-much of what we have been told about our great country is pure lies. I don't think Bush was elected either time? I think they are lying about 9/11. You have the most major shit that affects everything, elections, terrorist attacks, war, assasinations. I don't have the FACTS on hardly any of it. I just know my country is a lie. That's all I know. This is depressing and Leopold is most certainly wrong but man on the list of the four thousand lies that affect us this is a freaking day in June-that's all it is just another day in the lie that is America.

it's time for damage control before the limb is completely cut off

set up by such 'credible' sources, that they still believe it?

shit up that would inevitably be revealed as shit? They may have been gullible to sources/liars but they didn't do anything wrong that I can tell...

Rove has to gain:

a.)They are already vilifying the 'Liberal' media, and demanding an apology for Rove, and

b.)the M$M is speculating ad nauseum that the Dems have lost a major bullet in their 'rallying cry' of "The Party of Corruption..."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1414120

what a joke

They appear to be where they were two years ago. Symbolman was saying that the big news aggregators -- Google News, Yahoo News, etc. -- no longer pick up TO stories because of the Leopold stories last month. Bummer for TO.

and never lose ratings.

If TO is wrong, so be it. I can't understand why evertone has been so mean about it.

By the way, hi Tace! Haven't seen you in ages! How's the World News network coming along? What do you make of the reaction to the TO story? Does it make you nervous as a budding liberal news org? Makes being embedded with the troops look like a cakewalk in comparison. Talk about shitstorms! Wow.

... believers of the story...

The false "reality-based community" prophets bug me.

I don't mind nearly so much the idea that truthout blew a story (if blow it they did).

I guess I was bugged by truthout spitting in my face while telling me I'm so stupid that I don't know what "24 hours" means. I didn't care for that. But that's a somewhat separate issue.

You blow a story, you apologize, you move on. That seems perfectly fair to me.

I think the folks who BELIEVED in the story, without a shred of publically verifiable evidence are in a worse position though - it's THEIR credibility that's been shot.

I still do. And I damn well want old Turdblossom with his head on a chopping block.

I guess I will try to enjoy the fantasy of the false "reality-based community" as long as I can. My dad told me Santa committed suicide when I was a kid. I never gave up hope he was wrong.

... that some of us don't, simply because some of us demand evidence with strong claims.

Wow - at least you're upfront about the reality-based hypocrisy, I suppose - thanks for that at least.

Sigh. If only people wanted a REAL reality-based community...

I'm just saying that I am willing to cross my fingers and toes, spit in my palm, poke a pin in a voodoo doll, grasp at straws...but I am not willing to have folks rub my nose in dogshit repeatedly for the sheer joy of it.

The meanspiritedness did not ever come from me. I was always willing to wait and see how the story would develop.

from the Fitz.

I am officially requesting a copy of the letter from Fitz's office....

Was the indictment derailed by the Bush WH?

I mean, yeah, the guy's defending a scumbag, but that doesn't mean he's gonna throw away his career doing it.

That is all. Luskin is a good liberal lawyer. But I'd like to see the supposed letter from Fitz.

I'd like to see it too. But I would point out that, at this point, even without the letter, the weight of evidence is that Rove has, in fact, slipped the noose. Obviously, it won't be 100% until the letter is out there. And, as I said, I agree with you in that I'd like to see it too.

However, I do believe that he would release only a portion of the contents of the letter to the press. There may have been more to it than we are being told.

OTOH, the TO source could have been played a fool by Rovian tactics.

Hopefully, someday soon the whole truth will come out

I also get the sense from Amb. Wilson's statement on the matter that a civil suit could be a possibility

rove does a vicotry dance, republicans get to
demand apologies.

TO's post of a case number yesterday and Rove's Lawyer's statement the same day? Coincidence? When cops investigate a crime, they use coincidence as a basis for investigation....

Until I see it in writing that Rove is cleared, or hear it from Fitz himself, I won't believe it. So far, neither have happened. It's not over til it's over, Rover.

and am reserving my opinion till I find out everything there is to know about this story and how it came to be...

:bounce:

they may as well stand beside it

STATEMENT HERE ..AS PER BUZZFLASH:

http://libbydefensefund.com/news/06/0613.htm

Legal Counsel for Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Issues Statement in Response to Apparent Likelihood that Rove Won't be Indicted: "The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."




Legal Counsel for Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Issues Statement in Response to Apparent Likelihood that Rove Won't be Indicted: "The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."
In response to the news release by Robert Luskin, attorney for Karl Rove, that Rove is not going to be indicted for outing a CIA operative and endangering the national security of the United States or for committing perjury, the attorney for Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame released the following statement, which was transmitted to us:

Statement of Christopher Wolf, Proskauer Rose LLP, Counsel for Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson:

We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl. Rove's status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons.

End of Statement

:cry:

(Gold Bars refers to Luskin)

"""(1) Let us see the letter, Gold Bars. We'll judge for ourselves on just how "in the clear" your client is.

(2) I think the developing consensus (which I agree with) is that Rover has rolled on (pick 'em) Scooter, Deadeye, and, maybe Addington and this "letter" from Fitz might say something about "if you fail to cooperate, the indictment we've filed will be prosecuted". In so many words, Rover's made a very good cooperation agreement for himself, giving up significant information and/or personages, but he has a significant downside, should he welsh.
(FWIW, Leopold and Ash are standing by their stories on Rover being indicted, which remain consistent with a cooperation agreement. In short, if there had been no indictment, they'd have to burn their sources, and they haven't even begun to do that yet.)

(3) True, Gold Bars worked a very good result for his client, and deserves some kudos for his lawyerly skill, but Rover ain't out of the woods, yet.

(4) I bet June 16 in the indictment pool. I think my pick on the date was closest...."""

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015079.html

Why are people so satisfied with them? I'll never understand that, I suspect.

You mean all this hoopla is about the statement of Rove's lawyer alone? Here we go again. it might have been better to challenge the statement and ask for confirmation rather than stick the scoop itself out there again for more abuse.

This is not how the "news" is presenting this. If it is an attempt to force Fitz's hand or make hay while the sun shines that is the issue not the debate on scoop or no scoop.

The endless waiting for Godot news and the messengers we get instead.

Fitz would be out lickedy-split to deny it. Luskin would be disbarred for creating a blatant fraud. And Luskin would also incredibly harm his client's case by lying about the Prosecutor. It's true.

I've seen that suggested more than once. What the hell does it mean? Force Fitz to (a) rush into action to indict (b) publicly confirm that Rove is in the clear (c) throw himself off a bridge? There are two, and only two, responses that one would logically expect from Fitz to Ruskin's announcement: (1) if its true, Fitz says nothing, since there is no reason for him to say anything and it has been his practice all along to say as little as possible and (2) if Ruskin's statement was false then all it would "force" Fitz to do would be to issue a statement that no formal notification has been given to Ruskin regarding Rove's status and that the GJ investigation continues. Period.

The fact that Fitz hasn't said anything speaks volumes imo.

Could be he'll testify against Scooter; could be he's got a thing or two on Shotgun Dick. Sounds like Fitz never really had enough on Rove to indict, and it's no surprise that Rove has successfully played the "I misspoke" and "I forgot" game. As for Leopold et al, they're learning a hard lesson. Journalism is all about credibility--you have to be right a hell of a lot more than you're wrong, and you ALWAYS have to be right on the big stories, if you want to be taken seriously. If you're gullible enough to get burned by bogus "sources," you probably ought to look for another line of work. What's true for Judith Miller is true for Jason Leopold is true for any serious journalist, imo. For me, though, there's also the issue of consequence: when the NYT screws the pooch on the Iraq WMD story, and said pooch-screwing is then used by Cheney to bolster the case for a war that turns out to be a disaster, that's a whole different order of seriousness than the Leopold silliness. To date, nobody upstairs at the times has offered more than a watery mea culpa for the role they played in failing to properly vet the aluminum tubes story, among others--no heads have rolled at the editorial/publishing level, and at this point it seems unlikely that they ever will. Long story short, I think it's entirely reasonable to be critical of truthout and Leopold, but while doing so we should try to keep our sense of proportion.

If "Fitz never really had enough on Rove to indict", why would Rove "probably" have cut a deal?