Jason Leopold To Make Radio Appearance On Ed Schultz 3:30 PM

Truthout has added this to their statement re: Rove

To clarify: The entire basis for the information that "Rove has been cleared" comes from a verbal statement by Karl Rove's attorney. No one else confirms that. As Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin is bound to act - in all regards - in Rove's best interest. We question his motives.

and

Reporter who published indictment report to make radio appearance

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday June 13, 2006

Jason Leopold, the Truthout.org reporter who asserted May 13 that Karl Rove had been indicted in the CIA leak case, has scheduled an appearance on the nationally syndicated Ed Schultz talk radio show at 3:30 PM ET, RAW STORY can reveal.

Truthout editor Mark Ash continues to stand by the indictment report, and a second piece yesterday in which Leopold asserted that Rove's indictment might be sealed.

.............

No indication has been given of the nature of Leopold's appearance. He has said previously that he would out his sources if he believed he had been misled.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Reporter_who_published_indictment_report_to_0613.html


UPDATE

Truthout reporter stands by claim Rove was indicted

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday June 13, 2006

Jason Leopold, the Truthout.org reporter who asserted May 13 that Karl Rove had been indicted in the CIA leak case, told the syndicated Ed Schultz radio show that he stands by his original report.

Leopold also refused to identify his sources, who he said he would name if he was misled.

"I'm standing by that what we were told was accurate," Leopold said.

"Certainly if some bad information was given, we'll decide what the appropriate thing to do ," he added. "But if something did happen four weeks ago, something happened in the past four weeks in Karl Rove's favor...how does that make me wrong?"

Truthout editor Mark Ash also continues to stand by the indictment report and a second piece yesterday in which Leopold asserted that Rove's indictment might be sealed.

more at:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Truthout_reporter_stands_by_claim_Rove_0613.html

I mean Mr. Leopold wasn't pulling a Jayson Blair. And he sure was not like that Janet Cook who made up that story about an eight year old heroin addict a few years ago. I hope he does out them, but I am willing to believe they may have been wrong. Keep it going Jason Leopold! Don't let the bastards get you down.

And when the best are occasionally taken in, as Hersh was with the fake JFK documents, they admit it as soon as possible and on their own initiative. The worst keep heaping excuses upon excuses in a rising spiral of absurdity, trusting that there will always be somebody out there who's just not willing to think things through. We seem to be dealing with the worst here.

I don't listen to Schultz that often but it just occurred to me that he sounds like Rush Limbaugh. Ick!:)

WOW!

First time I happened upon the show, I thought Rush had seen the light.

words, they'd be indistinguishable virtually.

He converted from the right to be a liberal.

Leopold being wrong. Ought to be an interesting interview.

on remote islands in the Pacific who still thought they were fighting the good fight for Tojo.

?

That they think Rove was still somehow indicted on May 12. How many business hours ago was that?

Just wondering.

Leak Counsel Won't Charge Rove, Lawyer Announces

By DAVID JOHNSTON NY Times
published June 13, 2006


"...In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status...."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

That seems to be the sum total of what there is.

:shrug:

Luskin is Luskin

that started this mess. Leopold is Leopold

Rove's your not it letter was Pony Express

Armitage is being interviewed this afternoon as well. According to talkleft, Luskin states Karl made no deal. We should have more info later today.

....

Should be an interesting show.

thanks kpete !!!

a Leopold/TO thread listens to this....

It'd be much appreciated!

saying Luskin needs to release the letter. Until Fitz makes statement or Luskin release letter, he is standing by his story...

Also nutty, IMO. Doesn't look like he'll be revealing sources.

want to know who are your sources.... and Jason said no, this is a team effort by truthout... They said they would, that does not sound good...

Doesn't sound good - I wonder if they'll ever reveal the sources.

No one is addressing that issue.

It does not make any legal or political sense for Luskin to make this claim if he knows it is false.

You don't think that would have anything to do with anything?

That makes no political sense to you?

...they don't care. They can always pardon him out of it later. As long as they don't lose all of Congress this November and have the next Congress get into impeachment proceedings, that is.

Fitzgerald is going to hold the indictment for political reasons? No matter what anyone thinks of him, there is absolutely no evidence that he would do such a thing. And Luskin's job, for his part, is to act in the best interest of his client, not the Republican party.

To *avoid* affecting the political process until the grand jury decides, would be one reason. To leverage it toward getting other indictments, would be another.

Luskin is a well-known mafia lawyer. I believe nothing he says. If he presented this 'letter', I'd put a lot more credence in his statement. But his statement alone -- not worth nothing, in my opinion.

What Happened - How did you get it so wrong

JL:
The issue right now is Luskin made a statement saying there is a letter that Fitz sent to him.
He needs to release that letter
Until Fitz releases statement - I will not budge

Why I will not budge
The investigation has been going on for 2 years
David Schuster was convinced Rove would be indicted

More ?s Than answers

Still stands by his story

...

http://www.wcky.com/pages/streaming.html

He's not revealing sources.
Schultz pressing him hard. "America's gonna need to knoow your sources", "Why are you protecting them?"
Leopold: I don't have an answer for you.
Schultz: "People will think you made it up, or it was a high-powered power play"
L: How would that change anything? We've heard zilch from Fitzgerald. I'm not going to go out there... if something did happen 4 weeks ago & suddenly, it changed... how does that make ME, particularly, wrong?
S: You said there'd be an indictment...

Really. He's so dodging & weaving - Shultz is very good.

Good for you.

I have a Leopold poster in my room that I throw darts at as a stress-reliever. My initial impression of Leopold was, simply, that's he's untrustworthy. That's an intuitive thing, but kind of unshakeable. Other than that, I had no opinion one way or the other. Why would I bother hating someone? Who is he to me? Listening to this interview annoyed me, though - he wouldn't answer questions, dodged real answers, repeated talking points w/o explaining it. I got the impression he was lying. Do you honestly think he made a good impression? Schultz didn't seem to think so.

from Fitz that makes it clear it is a conditional pass, subject to change on some condition...

Thus Luskin won't release a copy?

I'm not a lawyer, just a guess based on some of what I've read of sealed indictments...

Leopold: There is a sealed indictment
Schultz: If it's not Rove, who is it?
L: Well.... I've been trying to get to the bottom of it.

'... Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."..."

It doesn't say Fitz said no way, he will not.

the question. The question was if there is a sealed indictment right now of Rove. Leopold wavered - and would only confirm that some sort of sealed indictment does exist, against someone, and he's "trying to get to the bottom of it." It sounds like he came this close to admitting that Rove hasn't been indicted & didn't contradict Schultz when Schultz said it might be someone else.

I have mild respect for Leopold in light of this.

I think he's an idiot, but he's certainly loyal.

right now. I wish Luskin would produce the "letter" or have Fitz make a statement on this.

I also wish for large pectoral muscles

but not explaining why it's right either.

on yesterday.

Great job BTW - I still can't get my PACER site to take the cases with the "MC" notations

was talking about when he said that there "is a sealed indictment?" I missed the first part of the segment.

If editors and writers at TO reveal sources, no one will want to come to them with information in the future.

He gave the impression that TO won't let him reveal his sources.

I disagree - I seem to remember that Fitz does NOT need to say anything

As for Luskin releasing letter - Forgetaboutit...



Jason says he WILL NOT REVEAL SOURCES!


Ed - America will need to know these sources

JL: I do not have an answer at this moment

Ed - you could have made it up or have been played...

JL: We have heard 0 from Fitz

and if so, it doesn't make his (Leopold's) story false. It only means Rove cut a deal.

Why isn't Leopold saying that his sources confirm that Luskin is making up shit if that's what's happening? Why don't those sources tell Leopold whether a deal has been cut and what that deal is?

I still want to know what Rove gains by cutting a deal.

for giving up Big Time.

sources are still communicating with me

& Still telling me there IS A SEALED INDICTMENT

sounds like something weird.

:rofl:

:rofl:

Get a towel, Jason, you're all washed up.

:)

Leopold: OK
S: but you STILL won't admit it. Giving people hope..
L: I'm not saying the indictment's still happening - what if there was an indictment and he cooperated? Could it go? Could it?
S: Alright, I'm just giving you the microphone here, just the vehicle.
L: If something changes, you're the first person I'll call.

And that's it.

That's already been demonstrated. The rest of the story is yet to be known, and may never be known. Fitz has no obligation to say who he thought about inditing, indicted and pulled it, or anything else.

Until there is a press conference by Fitz stating that th4e case is closed, we won't know.

NO - not in my book

Update:

Mr. Corallo added the following:

Jeralyn - it's over. You might want to tell Marc Ash and Jason Leopold that they are free to leave the "lockdown" on the 4th floor of Patton Boggs anytime they wish. Frankly, we suspected they were just there for the free donuts all along...

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


STB: That does not mean that I will stop hunting and gathering

I am still looking for peace, love and indictments

... conducted a tough but fair interview, Leopold did not sound too good.

He basically had no answers, no information, and was full of equivocal statements.

Oh well, I'm ready to forget about Fitz-Rove, the chips will fall if and when they do.

Look at the wording from the NY Times story I posted #20 above:

'... Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."..."

It doesn't say Fitz said no way, he will not.

It might say he does not anticipate prosecuting charges. But if there has been an indictment handed down already then Rove already has been charged...

but news of Rove's letter hasn't said any such thing.

to keep the information in tact, but unrevealed.

Jason Leopold is NOT Dan Rather. He's not even Brian Williams. He's some guy on a blog with an agenda. Just like the rightie blogs that have their own agenda with their own "reporters" who make up shit all the time.

Let this be a lesson. The internet is filled with garbage. Be smarter. If you choose not to be, then just send me your wallet and I'll promise to keep it safe for you.

Even before the internet, I remember my Mother telling me not to believe everything in the newspaper.

Good for Ed, he's not buying the GOP meme that "this destroys the credibility of the liberal news folks".

... I could do a good job on the phone, I'd call in and rebut this "royal we" bullshit. Somebody do it, PLEASE.

kinda GOP plant is it?

I haven't seen proof either way yet.
lot of judgement going on.

Absolutely nauseating.

Duck, dodge, wiggle, "you show me yours and I'll show you mine," etc.

And the winner for Strawman Of The Year is: "I think Fitzgerald should show the letter."

When has Fitzgerald EVER done anything like this? I'll tell you when - NEVER. And Leopold damn well knows he won't do it this time.

Right, the man noted for running leak-proof investigations is gonna run right out and say "Here it is, Jason! OK?"

I am trying - truly really trying - to cut those who believe the story some slack, but this display was so far beyond the pale it's almost surreal.

Oh, and do I really even have to get into "I'll reveal my sources" (May) vs. "NO! Never!" (today)

Even Schultz couldn't buy this load of manure.

He knows some will think it's a pile of gold no matter how bad it stinks.

or will they Still Belieeeeeeeve in the santa clause.

And I think so too.
Rove's non-indictment was brought to you by the same people who brought you WMDs in Iraq....

Apologies if I mis-heard him, but I believe he said both. I was in the car, and lost XM briefly while under a canopy of trees, but I don't think I that I missed his responses to that line of questioning. If I did, I'll amend that part of the post later in the thread.

Either way, not a prayer in hell that either does it.

If you're Luskin, why would you?

Lying about havuing it is a fast track to losing his law license, from what I've read.

His name was Joe. I had the two voices on my computer and they sound exactly alike. Did this guy just call into to the Ed Schultz show after being interviewed, so that he could keep defending himself?


Maybe they just sound like each other. I have to say it is kinda weird these two people would call Ed.