Decision ‘08

truthout On A Limb

Give truthout points for perseverence - it looked as if Marc Ash, the Executive Director of the site (by the way, I prefer that from now on I be known as the Executive Director of Decision ‘08) was going to issue his ‘partial apology’ and retreat from the smoldering ashes of Jason Leopold’s career. No more - he’s apparently going all in with a low pair:

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.

That’s what they know (I especially like the bit about learning as they go - is it really that difficult? Don’t all of us instinctively know that you don’t go with the big story unless you have it nailed to the floor?).

What they don’t know, but are perfectly willing to speculate on is that Rove is turning state’s evidence. To go after Cheney.

Let me repeat that - well, hell, let them repeat it:

…Rove may be turning state’s evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald’s investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one “off the record source” to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.

Well, at least they’ve learned their lesson about running with unconfirmed stories! A cynic might state at this point that Ash has looked at the traffic numbers and decided to milk this story for all it’s worth, truth be damned - and then, when the prophesied events fail to materialize, to issue another half-assed mea culpa - oh, we’re so sorry, accept our partial apology, this journalism thing is so new that we didn’t understand you needed to try to print true stories.

It won’t happen again until the next time, we swear…

5 Responses to “truthout On A Limb”

1 Fred Says:
May 22nd, 2006 at 8:33 pm
“….Here’s what we now know: I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove’s spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, “Rove is not a target,” “Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted,” and “Rove has not been indicted….”

One thing is certain; Karl Rove needs a new lawyer if in the middle of the case he categorically denies something he knows will eventually turn out to be absolutely true and public BEFORE THE CASE REACHES THE JURY.

What possible motive could a defense lawyer have for destroying his own credibility? Talk about polluting the jury pool.
2 topsecretk9 Says:
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:23 pm
One thing is certain; Karl Rove needs a new lawyer if in the middle of the case he categorically denies something he knows will eventually turn out to be absolutely true and public BEFORE THE CASE REACHES THE JURY.

Gee Fred, um are you Jason Leopold or something or are you being sarcastic? I hope it is sarcasm or else um…sad.
3 Fred Says:
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Let’s try again. Let’s assume for a moment that the article is either true or false. If it’s true then Karl Rove’s lawyer has to know that NOW. And he has to know NOW that irrefutable evidence proving it is true will be released shortly. (Not that this is the case for all I know. This is a mind experiment.)

Therefore, for the story to be true Karl Rove’s lawyer also has to know NOW that a jury will be established shortly who will be tasked with judging his trustworthiness and the truthfulness of his client. And as a good lawyer he has to know that it’s never too early to start influencing a jury or a jury pool.

So, with this in mind, when he’s called upon to make a public statement how should it sound?

All I’m claiming is that logically if his statement was full of euphemisms and/or equivocations, the blog story is true. And if his statement contains a categorical denial, the blog report must be false.

As he categorically denied the story, the blog got it wrong - QED.

The only other option is to assume that Karl Rove hired an idiot.
4 Mark Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:41 am
I agree - the straightforwardness of the denials is notable…
5 topsecretk9 Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:54 am
Ah fred…I see. You are saying Luskin would not risk and unequivocal denial if he were even slightly unsure. Yes, you don’t get to Baker Botts being a dummy. Thanks.