You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Truthout: Rove Under Double Secret Probation Indictment
2006-06-20
What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are unnamed lying career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors, which should be taken as an indication that we view this matter with the utmost seriousness.

For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: 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? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment."
"are you stoopid? If it ain't true I'm not gonna confirm it....moonbats"
The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered mostly lost cats and the availability of PO Boxes. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash.
"we're not ready for 'the truth'"..flashbacks to some movie ..
On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report.
"We were suckers and DNA proves it's Karl Rove's illegitmate love child? Nooooooo.....!"
It's not like they could admit they were wrong. Just wouldn't be the right thing to do ...
After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. 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. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.
Not that they can tell us what those are.
That leaves the most important question: 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?' That is a very troubling question, and the truth is, we do not yet have a definitive answer.

We also continue to be very troubled that no one has seen the reported communication from Fitzgerald to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, and more importantly, how so much public judgment could be based on a communication that Luskin will not put on the table. Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what our sources say and what Luskin says Fitzgerald faxed to him, we need to be able to consider what was faxed - and in its entirety.

What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered -
Blundered? Ya don't say!
- in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.

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.
Or it's all a total crock, and you were used allright, but not the way you think.
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.

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.
"Cheney...yeah ....that's the ticket!"
Karl Rove may be as devious and nasty as the liberals claim, but I don't see him rolling on Cheney, who can be, when necessary, even more devious and nasty.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be.

However, we call upon the Special Counsel to consider the right of the American people to know what has happened. Nothing, we believe, is more important to the survival of democracy than the light of justice, and nothing more damaging than the curtain of secrecy that today surrounds the highest office in the land.

Joe Lauria and The Washington Post's Attacks on Jason Leopold

We are well aware of the Lauria article and the series of attacks The Washington Post has launched against Jason Leopold and Truthout. As always, we will carefully consider all information and then publish a thoughtful response. In this case, we will publish our response on Wednesday, June 21, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time.
boy howdy! I thought the clarifications were gonna be unveiled with fog machines, spotlights and laser light entertainment on Monday....Guess I believed the last lying gasp of credibility
They did use fog machines. See above.
"Truthout.org Press Release™"
Posted by:Frank G

#14  Naw, don't worry. It's yellow rain. Happens from time to time.
Posted by: Karl   2006-06-20 18:45  

#13  Good point, TomAnon: this means Fitzgerald has a leaker or two on his staff. Maybe a leaker or two in the DoJ. Perhaps we should get subpoenas and get the TruthOut people to testify to a grand jury?
Posted by: Steve White   2006-06-20 16:08  

#12  "Our sources provided us...."

Be carefull TruthOut, there is a much bigger investigation going on to find leakers and you all may have been the perfect patsies for a plant.
Posted by: TomAnon   2006-06-20 13:36  

#11  John Podhoretz at National Review:

Truthout: Keep Giving Us Money!

One of the great documents of our time was released yesterday. It's by the editor of the Truthout website, and it purports to explain how and why Truthout's Jason Leopold came to report that Karl Rove had been indicted on May 12, 2006 — in light of the fact that Rove's lawyer announced last week the White House official would not be indicted for his role in the Plamegate scandal. Truthout's answer is that Rove has too been indicted, and that he has cut some kind of deal with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that allowed him to say he had been cleared.

I don't know when I've read anything quite this crazy — at least not for a decade or more, when far-Right versions of the far-Left Truthout maniacs were alleging that Bill Clinton had been a secret CIA agent during his time as governor of Arkansas profiting from small planes flying drugs in and out of Central America and ordering the murder of two teenage boys who saw too much at the Mena airstrip.

To be honest, I don't think Marc Ash, the editor of Truthout, actually believes what he wrote. I think he's got a marketing crisis on his hands. Truthout's website puts it this way: "The growth and success of TO can be linked directly to the support our readers have shown for the project. As many of you may know, TO is 100% reader supported. We have no corporate sponsors, no advertising, and no pop-ups. This news source depends upon its readers for its survival. Sure that can be annoying, and at times intrusive, but it's better, because we answer to you." I suspect that Truthout's aggressive "reporting" on Plamegate was a major moneymaker for Ash's operation, and Ash knows full well that a retraction of it would place the future of his website in jeopardy.

Fitzgerald won't be closing up shop for at least a year, and Ash can keep hope alive on a daily basis — and keep the money flowing from the sorts of people who will swallow almost any kind of flim flam as long as it reinforces their ideological hatreds. A lot of people on the Right made money off the Mena stuff (and other anti-Clinton stuff) in the '90s from angry nuts with checkbooks, and it's easier today with a credit card and a website like Truthout.
Posted by: Mike   2006-06-20 10:59  

#10  
The douche bags at TruthOut are blocking the entire yahoo.com domain from creating an account. I so wanted to have fun with them.

-M
Posted by: Manolo   2006-06-20 09:44  

#9  Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled.

Yes. When The Evil Karl Rove wants to setup a media outlet for a big fall, the bunch of half assed losers at Truthout is the first one that pops into his head.
He probably wet his pants laughing when he read this.

Posted by: tu3031   2006-06-20 09:24  

#8  THIS is the fundmentla rpoblem withthe moonbat left: it is INCAPABLE of admitting that it is wrong, even when faced with facts and solid evidence.

Their behavior now borders on being a psychosis, a mental illness.
Posted by: Oldspook   2006-06-20 09:05  

#7  This'll keep Truthout's BDS-afflicted followers happy for a few days, but this story's going to eventually unravel the way the previous story ("Rove was given 24hrs to put his affairs in order") did. Imagine the psychological crash that'll cause!

Either that, or Jason Leopold is one of Rove's paid operatives and this is all an elaborate plot to mentally torture the Angry Left.

Either that, or somewhere in a bar in DC, a Justice Departrment lawyer is bragging to his buddies over mixed drinks about going snipe-hunting with Jason Leopold: "And so I told him"-giggle-"I told him that Rove had rolled over and turned state's evidence . . . on Vice President Cheney! And, and, wait, it gets better--he believed me!"
Posted by: Mike   2006-06-20 07:45  

#6  This lack of shame, the inability to just say, "Uh oh, we fucked up." or "Oops. we were scammed.", is so precious. That they lack even the simplest level of honesty forces them to dance momentarily like a droplet of water on a hot griddle - then *poof*. It solves nothing. It assuages nothing. It fools no one. It just highlights the depth of their BDS.

TruthOut. Right. Fools. Shit-for-brains.
Posted by: Thavilet Ulosh6709   2006-06-20 05:44  

#5  Bah, $50 seem awfully high for a moonbat anyway.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-06-20 01:59  

#4  Used, and no $50 on the nightstand.
Posted by: Pappy   2006-06-20 01:41  

#3  Dear Losers:

You were used by your own kind.

Thanks for the show, and have a nice day.
Posted by: grb   2006-06-20 01:05  

#2  Drink alert on that picture, damnit!!!
Posted by: Danking70   2006-06-20 00:41  

#1  blah, blah, lah, la LOOOOSERS!
Posted by: 2b   2006-06-20 00:23  

00:00