Monday, June 19, 2006

Is Rove Off The Hook?

During the last week or so, mainstream media reported that Karl Rove will not be indicted.

To much fanfare, Rove's attorneys told the press that Fitzgerald had notified their office he would not be seeking an indictment against Rove; and they also shared a letter that said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

As many bloggers have noted, anticipating is not definitive; and Fitzgerald's office has refused to confirm or comment on the matter.

The folks at firedoglake and others believe Rove is cooperating with Fitzgerald and the careful use of "anticipation" in the letter probably means an indictment could still loom ahead if Rove refuses to live up to his agreement to testify.

But other folks ain't buying it. Truthout via TPM Muckraker is standing by their original story. Only a week ago, Leopold wrote another breaking news story that a sealed indictment in District Court, "Sealed vs. Sealed," has Karl Rove's name on it.

An entry in Judge Reggie Walton who is hearing the Libby case was added to the docket on May 12. It remains unsealed, which points to a major league, well-publicized case.

Now, if Jason Leopold's story is bunk, why is Truthout continuing to stand by their original story? Could Leopold's scoop be accurate and Rove's attorney also be telling the truth?

One scenario sketched out by citizenspook explains how both could be telling the truth: "a runaway Grand Jury [could] have returned charges without Fitzgerald having sought them or signed them -- allow[ing] all of the parties to be telling the truth."

Without going into every nook and cranny detail, which Howling Latina would probably screw-up, read for yourselves. Riveting stuff for Plamegate buffs.

Didn't truthout back down from their story this past Fri?
Not any stories by TruthOut staff, as far as I could tell from a google search and search of their Web site.
Truthout is not backing Leopold's story if I'm correct:
Hmm, I didn't exactly read anything saying they had the story wrong.

Let's see:

"Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin..."

Notice the use of "supposedly," which leaves room for doubt.

" As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications."

At this time, is the KEY. No mea culpa, we got the story wrong.

"Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically.

"Please keep in mind that over the years we have reported on many examples of individuals being scapegoated in crisis situations by superiors seeking cover from controversy. Truthout, however, does not do scapegoats. And we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold."

Sure looks like they're not backing down from the principal tenet of the story, "Rove has been indicted."
Well, Truthout just updated their Rove story. Now I'm confused.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?