More On The Jason Leopold and Joe Lauria Saga From The AP

[kpete]

Leopold and Lauria
The Associated Press

Monday 19 June 2006

We've talked a bit about the Jason Leopold saga here on Public Eye in the past, and the Washington Post yesterday printed a somewhat strange piece that gives us a slightly better idea of how his now-discredited scoop - claiming Karl Rove would be indicted - came to pass.

According to journalist Joe Lauria, former Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo (who now works for Rove) says someone used Lauria's name and gave a cell phone number similar to Lauria's in two phone calls to Corallo that took place just before Leopold's story broke. The phone calls took place not long after Lauria had met Leopold and given him his phone number. Lauria, connecting the dots, writes that Leopold's "aggressive disregard for the rules ended up embroiling me in a bizarre escapade." Leopold denies using Lauria's name to work sources, but Lauria doesn't buy it, noting that Leopold, in his memoir, admits lying to get stories.

I referred to the piece as strange because it seems, for lack of a better word, somewhat vindictive. Consider this: In the second paragraph, Lauria calls Leopold "a troubled young reporter with a history of drug addiction." In the next paragraph, he throws in a clause about Leopold's "drug abuse and a run-in with the law." The next graf: a reference to Leopold's "cocaine addiction." And in the following graf, the piece de résistance: "Leopold says he gets the same rush from breaking a news story that he did from snorting cocaine. To get coke, he lied, cheated and stole. To get his scoops, he has done much the same."

We get the point, Joe.

I understand that Lauria wanted to clear his name, but this seems a tad over the top. This is not a defense of Leopold, whom we have called on to name his sources, as he promised to do if his story turned out not to be true. He clearly seems unconcerned with journalistic ethics, to put it mildly. But I'm not sure that in a piece that mentions Leopold's drug use four times Lauria can plausibly claim the high road, though he does anyway in a conclusion lamenting the "narcissistic culture."

more at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/06/19/publiceye/entry1727334.shtml
via:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061906Y.shtml

[dogday]

1. Yes it would seem that a great many are

going out of their way to smear Leopold.. :shrug:

[Sydnie]

2. I agree with you dogday

I can't wait for it to end either!

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

3. Seems to me that Leopold's doing a good enough job on his own.

[dogday]

5. You would think that would be enough

but not for some..

[bigtree]

4. .

[Snivi Yllom]

6. the best part of the article:

Is it all right to lie to get a story? My first thought is that it is not. But what if, thanks to one little lie, you can expose something really important? Can you lie if it means getting the Watergate story, for example? One is inclined, in such a case, to wonder if the ends justify the means.

The problem with this idea is that you're playing with fire. When you've lied once, in a "justified" situation, it becomes harder to not lie the next time, regardless of the strength of your justification. And, as Leopold has learned all too well, if you are willing to lie to your sources, they have every reason to lie to you.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. This Lauria guy seems like some kind of cretin.

I wonder if he posts on DU? :evilgrin:

[Techno Dog]

9. Interesting

People think Laurie was some RW hack out to get Leopold but I wonder if anyone making that claim bother to check him out?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22joe+lauria%22&btnG=Search&meta=

Now the author of the cbs blog however....

[Catherine Vincent]

11. Why hello there, Techno Dog!

Nice to see you. :hi:

[Techno Dog]

23. Thanks

You too.

:toast:

[dogday]

13. oops wrong story---sorry

Here is the right link

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015104.html

[Imperialism Inc.]

15. What is wrong with that story?

It is an anti-Iraq war piece.

[5X]

16. Did you even read your own link?

He was attacking a party chair (edit) that attacked another for
voting against the war.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Igel]

34. The enemy of my friend is my ... n/t

[JeffR]

10. !

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

52. BWAAA HA HA HA HA!!!

Rarely do I see so few words with so much meaning! Good one, cat_girl25!

[Poll_Blind]

8. Maybe he's just pissed that Leopold dragged his name into this?

You've got an arguable point, I noticed those little tells too. I have no idea how pissed he really is that Leopold deceptively used his name to gain leverage in the story. At this point, trying to untangle any MSM bias from personal anger may be difficult.

PB

[Marie26]

12. Is this from the Associated Press?

Or the "Public Eye" CBS News Blog? The CBS link doesn't attribute the story to the AP. But, oddly, the Truthout link does. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061906Y.shtml I wonder if this is their promised update?

[Catherine Vincent]

18. I was just about to ask about their update for today.

[Marie26]

22. This is it

I just checked the site - no update from TO.

[Catherine Vincent]

24. Is CBS connected with the Associated Press?

I'm confused.

[Marie26]

26. No

I think it's wrong. CBS News & AP are two totally different news organizations. This is a random opinion piece posted by a random CBS reporter on the CBS blog - that's NOT an Associated Press story. As far as I can tell, Truthout saw the "AP" label on the Rove photo & assumed the entire piece was from the AP! :crazy: *shakes head sadly*. This doesn't help their editing credentials much. Or maybe they thought a story from the "Associated Press" would carry a lot more weight than a CBS blog entry - in which case they just lied.

[Catherine Vincent]

27. True.

They should correct it.

[Marie26]

29. Catgirl, we finally agree

on something! LOL. :toast:

[dogday]

31. I love to see DUer's agree

:toast:

[Catherine Vincent]

39. Yes, we do. :)

But I'm sure we agree on a number of things. That's why we're here on DU. But the Leopold saga is one big mess.

[lala_rawraw]

64. my head is starting to spin...

because none of this adds up in any rational way. i want my mommy or my bankie:grouphug:

or my loopy could just be acting up and my SED rate far too high, who knows.

[IsIt1984Yet]

32. Ohh.... oops.

:blush:

Wow. Amazing.

[Marie26]

45. So sad

They couldn't even get a reprint right!

[IsIt1984Yet]

46. It speaks volumes.

Just wow!!

[arwalden]

58. Good Catch, Marie26!! --- What Do You Make Of That?

If it's an error, is it by accident or by design?

[Marie26]

67. It's an error

I suspect it's by design. This is an opinion piece, not a straight news story, so the author's name should have been cited. If you look at Truthout's site, they always list the author's name on columns they reprint from other news sources. Even w/straight news stories from the AP, they'll still usually put the reporter's name, too. Ex: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061806C.shtml. Except here, they posted an article that's clearly opinion, & written in the first person, but they never think to put the author's name? Worse, they somehow completely get the source wrong? And nobody caught this? As soon as I read this, the AP cite didn't seem right - AP reports on important global news events, not silly internet fights. Plus, the TO reprint includes a link to the original article from the CBS "Public Eye" blog, & the article even says it's from the "Public Eye" blog. An editor should have caught this. Unless maybe the editor put in the AP cite on purpose.

This is the first article TO has reprinted on its own site about the Leopold affair. And they wanted to run it on the front page cause it's favorable to their reporter. But, it's not a real news article. The front page has important wire stories from AP, Reuters, Guardian, etc.; so, they just change the cite to the AP & slide it onto the front page as if it was another wire story. This accomplishes a couple things - first, it tricks readers into thinking that the AP itself is taking sides on the TO story (for TO), & second, it allows them to frame a blog post as a verified, factual news story. All this is done to try to persuade readers that Lauria wasn't telling the truth. Blech. I think they're trying to mislead readers in order to attempt to CYA. I emailed TO w/the discrepency; we'll see if they change it anytime soon. If they don't, I'm inclined to think it's a purposeful misrepresentation.

[seabeyond]

14. i dont know story. IF someone used my name and number in that

fashion, i would be pissed, royaly pissed and i would have every right to be. if this is true, i wil hardly be standing here judging lauria

[Snivi Yllom]

28. any respectable newsroom would fire this reporter

for misrepresenting himself as someone else and lying about it

[lala_rawraw]

65. yes, if true, i agree absolutely

[JuniperLea]

54. Did Leopold use his name?

I thought Leopold never gave his sources...

:shrug:

[theboss]

17. If someone was using my name, I wouldn't pull punches either

The Lauria story is the most bizarre moment in this saga yet. And - again - TO is not responding to it.

[Marie26]

20. But they did reprint this article

That's the first article about the Leopold saga that they've put on their site. Is it a sort of tacit acknowledgment that they messed up the story? Maybe it's the closest they'll come?

[deaniac21]

19. All of these people from across the political spectrum are out

to get Jason Leopold. It's becoming more and more obvious that Rove's machine is working overtime. At the same time it's becoming clearer and clearer that Leopold MUST be telling the TRUTH!

I BELIEVE!

[theboss]

33. Because if you can't trust a disgraced, cocaine addict....

Who can you trust?

[Catherine Vincent]

35. George W. Bush?

[lala_rawraw]

66. Courtney Love? who else?

this could be fun:)

[Marie26]

36. Satire? Who can tell? nt

[quiet.american]

25. It all sounds so familiar... is Leopold now being "Hatfield-ed"?

Vis-a-vis, given the same smear treatment as the tragically unfortunate author of Fortunate Son?

[leveymg]

37. AFAIK, there's nothing in Fortunate Son that was proven untrue

Hatfield, as far as I know, got it right but had his character smeared. Very Rovian, that one. So is this one, but different.

[pitohui]

40. yes this is NOTHING like hatfield

hatfield's stories were true and accurate, and * ultimately acknowledged that he did have a history of cocaine and alcohol abuse

being suicided because you broke a true story is not in the same universe as being held in contempt because you broke a made-up story

i don't see why hatfield and leopold should even be mentioned in the same breath!

[quiet.american]

44. Not referring to Leopold/Hatfield, but to GOP low-life tactics

The veracity of Leopold vs. Hatfield is not my point. My point is that the same tactics from the usual GOP suspects are being used. Mainly, mentioning in every breath that Leopold has used drugs, in the same way that an attempt to discredit Hatfield was made by using his past against him.

[Techno Dog]

49. It's not a GOP low life tactic

to explain to believers that their faith is misplaced in a man that publicized his drug use to sell a book, and who in his book says ethics are for losers.

[Catherine Vincent]

53. Interesting.

Now you're defending GOP low life tactics.

[Karmakaze]

57. Umm I believe...

that it was LEOPOLD who claimed to be a past drug user and that getting the scoop was for him much like getting a fix.

So is it GOP smear tactics for Leopold to smear himself??

Or is it that you are just trying to supress crticisim of Leopold by basically calling anyone who does it a "GOP lowlife"?

[Techno Dog]

61. It has become obvious

the truth is irrelevant to you as long as you can try to bait me into a fight.

I have defended no-one.

Have a nice day.

[quiet.american]

55. "Connecting the dots" is hardly "explaining" on Lauria's part.

This weird saga just goes on and on....

[leveymg]

30. And, here's someone at the Columbia Journalism Review

taking a swipe a few days earlier.

http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php
Jun. 13, 2006 - 3:37 PM
Three Strikes, You’re Out
Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again
Paul McLeary
We wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and serial fabulist Jason Leopold. Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, self-admittedly "getting it completely wrong" in pieces for Dow Jones, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns over the accuracy of quotations.


Leopold's latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year, when he got what appeared to be the scoop of a lifetime. Now writing for Truthout.org, Leopold reported that Karl Rove "told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials," that he was about to be indicted in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, "according to people knowledgeable about these discussions."


Leopold claimed that multiple sources "confirmed Rove's indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation."


Well, today we learned that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he would not seek charges against Rove.


Oops.

SNIP

[Divernan]

43. More from the highly prestigious Columbia Journalism Review

So much for what Leopold knows. Apparently, Leopold is a very religious man, because he "believes" quite a bit about the alleged indictment. He believes that it "is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation. That's based on a single credible source." He goes on to list several other things he "believes" to be true, all fed to him by, in his words, the "same single credible source." (Once again, Ash's "three independent sources" are nowhere to be found.)


As for what you should believe about Leopold's story, it's worth looking at his background in more detail. When Leopold's story was first called into question a few weeks ago, Salon's Tim Grieve reminded readers of Leopold's checkered history with the publication. Salon removed Leopold's August 29, 2002 story about Enron from its site after it was discovered that he plagiarized parts from the Financial Times and was unable to provide a copy of an email that was critical to the piece. Leopold's response? A hysterical rant (linked above) which claimed that Salon's version of events was "nothing but lies," and that "At this point, I wonder why Salon would go to great lengths to further twist the knife into my back. I suppose the New York Times will now release their version of the events. I can see the headline now 'Jason Leopold Must Die.'" In other words, people are out to get him, and it's not his fault.


Fast forward to March 2005, when Leopold's memoir, Off the Record, was set to be released. In the book, according to Howard Kurtz, Leopold says that he details his own "lying, cheating and backstabbing," and comes clean about how he got fired from the Los Angeles Times and quit Dow Jones just before they fired him because, as he said, it "Seems I got all of the facts wrong" on a story about Enron.


But the book was not to be. Rowman & Littlefield, the book's publisher, cancelled production just before it went to press after one of the book's sources threatened to sue. That source, Steven Maviglio, who was a spokesman for California Governor Gray Davis, said that Leopold "just got it completely wrong" when recounting how he allegedly told Leopold that he "might have broken the law by investing in energy companies using inside information."

[pitohui]

38. over the top how?

becoming comfortable with the Big Bold Lie is part and parcel of drug and alcohol addiction, and leopold's history as a liar and a cheat to score drugs and fame is certainly relevant when we are discussing issues of his credibility -- the point being that he has none

i don't think the people who played down leopold's history did themselves any favors and they certainly were not being honest with readers

if your good name was pickpocketed by a self-promoting drug addict, then you'd probably be a little peeved too

[Igel]

41. I can under Lauria's annoyance with Leopold.

Using his name to get a story; and to get it wrong, at that. Sort of the James Frey of online print media (the memoirist is intended, not the writing prof).

I took the drug abuse thing to be partly snide, and in part to motivate the 'addicted to news rush' metaphor. Just saying he's addicted to a rush loses a lot of impact if that's his only addiction. But drug addicts are widely reported to lie, steal, and cheat to get their fix, and to be ill; it makes 'addicted to a news rush' much worse, and makes Leopold's pathology worse. But it also denies him responsibility, in a left-handed sort of way (with no offense intended to lefties per se).

[KittyWampus]

59. Lauria got the story about Leopold using his name from Corallo-Rove's

defense spokesperson.

Corallo works for ROVE.

[Karmakaze]

74. Well that just proves it then!!

I mean regardless of the fact that there is a mountain of evidence that Leopold lied about many aspects of this story, the fact that someone who works for Rove said it, PROVES that it is a lie!

Now I get it!

Oh by the way, Lauria didn't get the story from Carallo. TalkLeft got the story that someone named Joel had called Carallo. Joe Lauria read this and became suspicious. So he contacted Carallo and asked for more details. What Carallo told him led Lauria to believe that Leopold had used his identity when talking to Carallo.

So unless you are trying to suggest that Carallo was involved in yet another devious plan to smear Leopold by playing silly little games with TalkLeft, when he could have just called Lauria directly, then I think your whole spin on this is just flat out wrong.

[robbedvoter]

42. Shouldn't these learned, powerful folks cover stuff that matters?

Such as - just a suggestion - what WaPo is sitting on, hoping W's numbers grow from the last stunt?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1457283

[peacetalksforall]

47. Whether Leopold is the worst person of the year or not - the drug talk

here is hilarious.

If drugs are in his past

And Republicans always demand that Dems be saintly and pure

And if some DUers are also combining user or former user in their condemnations of Leopold

Then that means some DUers also demand saintliness and purity

So the question is how long does someone carry the tag of a former drug user?
I believe that question is something that Rove and Bartlett would like to ask in their defense of their man.

And aren't there current drug users in politics?

Hypocrisy reigns. Everywhere.

[Techno Dog]

48. asdf

"So the question is how long does someone carry the tag of a former drug user?"

When he stops using it to sell books, and when he stops trying to pass off bogus stories as truth, I'm sure people will drop it.

[peacetalksforall]

50. Oh that we could demand parallel purity of our leaders.

No person with an agenda shall attempt their agenda if their body is with sin.

Give this law a number.

What is thy former user's reward should a former user abandon all agendas?

Glory to the non-agended.

[Techno Dog]

51. No that's a straw man

We, or at least I, hold my side up to HIGHER standards than the GOP. I know they are scum and expect them to lie because their ideas are morally bankrupt.

[Karmakaze]

56. This article misses the point about the use of Lauria's name...

If you read Lauria's article you see:

I don't really know why Leopold may have pretended to be me to Corallo. I can only speculate that he either was trying to get a reaction and thought Corallo would be more likely to respond to a conservative-leaning mainstream paper, or he was trying to get Corallo to acknowledge that Rove had been indicted by bluffing that the Sunday Times had confirmed the story. In fact, Corallo told me that "Joel" told him that he had Fitzgerald's spokesman on the record about the indictment. He has also said he believes Leopold made up the whole story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601754_2.html

See, what Lauria is saying is not that Leopold lied to get a story, but that Leopold lied to cover up his own involvement in manufacturing that story.

Lying to get a story is one thing, and it may even be ethical if used for the right purpose, but this is something else. Of course Lauria would be well pissed off by Leopold using his name in something so explosive, especially if it is a flat out lie. Lauria has his own reputation to worry about, and Leopold seems to have indirectly smeared him.

Then people come on here and complain about Leopold being smeared? Give me a break. The man is an admitted LIAR. In fact, he even denied he had used Lauria's identity while getting the story. Who else did he claim to be? To whom else did he claim to be Lauria, and what did he say while doing it?

There comes a point where even a "conspiracy theorist" like me has to say that it is a little far fetched to think that Rove would waste his time going after Leopold. What would be the benefit? Even if he discredits TO, what has he really accomplished? Nothing. But if it were to come out that he had done this, a lot of damage could ensue.

There just isn't enough reason for him to go to these lengths to get Leopold.

But is there enough reason for Leopold to go to these lengths to manufacture a story? More than enough. Just being the one to scoop the entire media on such a big story would leap him to the top of the investigative journalism tables. Then there is his book to think about. The publicity surrounding such a scoop would surely increase sales of his book phenomenally.

What about TO? Why would they lie about confirming Leopold's story? Well as with Leopold it would leapfrog them into the rarefied atmosphere of the Washington Post's and New Yorks Times'. They would be HUGE. Could that blind them to the truth? Could that motivate them to stretch the truth? Even just trying to protect their own reputation would be reason enough for them to continue to support Leopold in the open, even if behind the scenes they are cursing his name.

The simple fact is, the story was BADLY wrong. Then the story changed over and over again, becoming weaker with each modification, till we are left with simply an assertion that someone told them it happened and they believed it.

Here is a question for the TO supporters: If you think TO is above reproach, then ask yourself, why there has been NO WORD from these sources? What have THEY got to say about what happened? Notice that since the story broke, TO has not printed a single word attributed to these sources. Did they just disappear? Why won't they tell us what happened? Why is TO forced to speculate about "Sealed V Sealed" and other equally lame excuses?

Could it be that the sources simply did not exist, and the last thing TO wants is to dig themselves an even deeper hole?

Another question for the Will Pitt fans: Why has the man not come back to DU to explain what happened? In fact he has been awful silent on the issue, even over at TO. I can't find a single word he has written about this fiasco. Everyone seems to trust his word when it comes to his articles, yet he has never put his name to an article supporting Leopold. Why is that?

[KittyWampus]

60. Why does everyone believe Corallo ROVE'S SPOKESPERSON?

[JuniperLea]

62. Same reason they believe Rove's lawyer?

I just don't get it! In an effort to satiate the hard-on some DUers have to smear TO, they are apparently willing to believe the devil himself.

I'm still waiting to hear something I can believe on this story, from either side.

I do, however, find it very interesting that Rove came out in his own little liberal blog smear campaign in the past few days. If those blogs were truly as unimportant to him as he would have us believe they are, then why bother? I would think silence would speak better.

This whole deal is getting curiouser and curiouser...

[Karmakaze]

69. I dunno, maybe because they have not been proven to have lied?

Unlike Leopold, against whom the evidence is stacking up quite high.

I do, however, find it very interesting that Rove came out in his own little liberal blog smear campaign in the past few days. If those blogs were truly as unimportant to him as he would have us believe they are, then why bother? I would think silence would speak better.

So is that supposed to be evidence that he would go through all that trouble to smear one Web site? Seriosuly? Are you really trying to suggest that Rove orgnanised a conspiracy simply to discredit TO? Or is it more the case that Rove is concerned about the affect of the ENTIRE left-wing blog community, rather than one individual site?

By the way, can you not answer my questions? Here they are in short:

Why haven't TO reported what their "sources" are saying now? What are the "sources" reasons for the lack of an indictment?
Why hasn't Will Pitt put his name to any article that supports Leopold? Is he simply protecting his own reputation as much as he can?

I have asked these questions on other threads about this, and no one has ever even attempted to answer them.

[JuniperLea]

76. Well, it's fairly obvious why those questions have not been answered

"Why haven't TO reported what their "sources" are saying now?"

You would have to ask that of TO, now, wouldn't you? Anything anyone here might say, outside of Will Pitt, would be pure guesswork.


"What are the "sources" reasons for the lack of an indictment?"

Same as above... this is my main, actually, my only point. Guessing does no good. We simply do not have enough information to make even an informed guess!


"Why hasn't Will Pitt put his name to any article that supports Leopold? Is he simply protecting his own reputation as much as he can?"

Why do you want pure conjecture? Why is it so important to have guesses? Why can't you wait for facts?

Of course Rove isn't concerned with merely one website. That is absurd. But in case you haven't noticed, this story, in one form or another, has appeared on many, many liberal and left wing sites. All I said is that it is very interesting he would speak out against liberal blogs at this particular time when said blogs are a veritable cornucopia of Rove stories. It is interesting!

[Karmakaze]

68. Why shouldnt I believe him?

Apart from the fact he works for Rove, what else suggests he may have lied? I mean, compare that to the belief that Leopold told the truth. There is a history of lying, the story in itself has some problems, and then finally it turns out to be completely wrong, but people still believe him. If THAT is not enough to consider someone a liar, why should I NOT believe Carallo?

Does being on one side of the issue automatically make you a liar, and on the other side a truth teller, no matter how much evidence there is for lying?

[devilgrrl]

63. Incredible. With all the shit happening, this is the story with legs.

Un-Fucking-Believable!


:puke:

[Karmakaze]

70. What is so unbelievable about it?

After all the time the left has spent criticising the mainstream media for being biased and not reporting the truth, don't you think it is interesting that many here are willing to give TO a pass for the same thing? Don't you think the media itself may be enjoying pointing out the hypocrisy?

The point is, you can't claim the moral high ground while at the same time being immoral. That is what the right wing try to do all the time and we criticise them for that. Why should the left be immune? We either live by our own principles, or we have no principles at all.

Unlike many, it seems, I do have principles and I don't give a pass to any lies in the media, whether they be from the left or the right.

[Cameron27]

73. Karmakaze

"Unlike many, it seems, I do have principles and I don't give a pass to any lies in the media, whether they be from the left or the right."
:thumbsup:

[Marie26]

71. UPDATE: Returning to "06 cr 128"

"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 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."

The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. 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.

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.

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.

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.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/

Dear God, they're trying to go back to Sealed v. Sealed! Unbelievable. :puke:

[Karmakaze]

75. Even worse! They are trying to say they HELPED get Rove!!!

OMG I can't believe this bullshit:

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.

Can you believe that? They are suggesting that FITZGERALD leaked the info to them in order to put pressure on Rove and make him turn!

Think about that for a minute: Firstly, assume that it is true. Guess what? TO just gave the Bush admin the ammo to shut down the investigation - remember that leaking the proceedings of a Grand Jury is illegal. Add to that the fact that the indictment was supposedly sealed, so leaking it would also be illegal. End of investigation. Possibly end of Fitzgeralds carreer.

If it is NOT true, then TO has just hung Fitzgerald and the entire investigation out to dry in order to protect themselves.

This is simply astounding!

[Marie26]

77. They're heros!

In their own minds. :eyes: Fitzgerald, Rove & all of Washington, DC apparantly base their actions on Truthout's reports. Fitzgerald, famous for his leak-free GJ, decided to risk sanctions & his career by leaking to Truthout only as part of his power-play. They're just that important & trusted. But then they'll turn around & expose Fitzgerald, no problem. Rove was so scared of Truthout, he had to start negotiating. Luskin was so scared of Truthout's scoop, he had to concede to Fitz's demands. All this, despite the fact that Fitz announced "no changes anticipated." So Fitz did this elaborate power play, using TO as a vital tool, in order to quash his own indictment? There's so many things wrong w/that update that I don't even know where to begin. I'm kind of astounded too.

[Karmakaze]

78. I totally agree...

I don't believe it for one second.

Before, this was just about accuracy in the media for me. I want the left leaning media to be held to the same rules that we hold the right leaning mainstream to. But now this has become a whole lot more important.

It looks to me like TO has just handed the Bush cabal their excuse for killing the Plame investigation on a silver platter. If Bush does use this as an excuse, what are we on the left supposed to say? How can we explain the fact that an anti-Bush website was the one that made this claim, but that Bush is wrong in using it?

Check and Mate as far as I can see. TO has just painted themselves into a very tight corner. Either they lied, or Fitzgerald broke the law. They also can't backtrack now and claim that they were set up by Rove. They made it clear that it was not Rove's people who told them this.

Jesus, I wish TO had just come clean in the first place then shut up about this. They are really screwing us every time they open their mouths.

[Marie26]

79. Well, the consolation

is that no one's going to believe this. I seriously doubt that this'll hurt Fitz's creditability or his investigation. It's almost like they know we know it's all BS, but they'll say it anyway. The benefit is that they can continue to refuse to "out" their alleged sources. But it's hard for me to see how this can really be used against Fitz. How is the right wing going to use a liberal site w/a discredited reporter like Leopold to make their case? TO really isn't that important in the scheme of things. I really hope that this doesn't hurt anything - but it's still incredibly shady for TO to imply that Fitz's side is the source of this story.

[Karmakaze]

80. The thing is...

Rove doesn't have to actually succeed in shutting down the investigation. All he has to do is point at this as an excuse, and we are stuck with the meme "Left wing blogs lie" or "Fitzgerald broke the law".

No matter which way it turns out, it is a victory for Rove.

Also, even the APPEARANCE of impropriety can seriously jeopardise an investigation such as this. Fitzgerald has to be squeeky clean, or he could be out on his ear. Even the slightest amount of dirt is gonna echo around the mainstream media like a cannon blast, and Fitzgerald will end up having to defend hismelf from these allegations rather than concentrating on the investigation.

I just can't see this NOT being bad, no matter what the outcome is.

[kpete]

72. TRUTHOUT UPDATE!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1462928&mesg_id=1462928