Regardless of the veracity of Leopold's report

[Stevendsmith]

We had, I assume, credible reports from at least a week and a half ago that Fitzgerald was nearing a decision on the Rove matter and that a decision was expected any day now.

But the Rove case seems to have gone deep underground again.

None of the mainstream reporters have had any new information for over a week.

(And spare me the absurd notion that the maintream media "don't want to touch this story." They are salivating over this thing.)

[babylonsister]

1. Maybe the corp. media whores were told to stay mum until they

absolutely had to spill it. Nothing shocks...

[Stevendsmith]

2. Why would they do that? A Rove indictment would be a ratings bonanza.

[babylonsister]

3. Because they're protecting him and this admin? Seems that way

to me. Why aren't they even speculating otherwise? I don't know; just throwing it out there. I don't quite know what to make of all of it, so I'm just hanging in and waiting like everyone else. Fitz knows best!

[Stevendsmith]

4. Well, it is odd that there barely even talking about it anymore. (n/t)

[babylonsister]

6. Check this out; comment answered:

Update on the Rove Indictment Story
By Marc Ash

Wed May 17th, 2006

For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

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." Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold's account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.

We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.

We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.

More: http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/17/125248/0...

[kenny blankenship]

5. yes it will drive viewership up for news shows/ news networks in theory

Once it gets rolling it will be good for all of news outlets, but who wants to be the first? It's like the honor of being in the first wave of a bloody frontal assault of a enemy position which you know will fight to the last man. Your buddies will remember you fondly if they survive, and talk about your heroism, but no one will remember your name or face. Why didn't journalists laugh at Stephen Colbert's press club address? Colbert was very funny, but the Emperor was right there at the dais looking at the room. Applause for Colbert would be moving yourself to the top of Bush's shit list. It's kind of the same issue with Bush/Rove scandals: nobody in the press wants to make a target of themselves. And even if there's a reporter here or there who still wants to do their job and get the story, they have producers and corporate lawyers looking over their shoulders who don't want them to make enemies with the GOP, the Bush Administration, and the powerful corporations who underwrite the GOP, Bush AND the networks.