Monday, May 22, 2006

marc ash vs corallo & luskin. again.

* Tim Grieve:

In addition, Ash said that he's uncertain about some of the events leading up to and following the meeting that supposedly happened last Friday at Patton Boggs. Ash said he isn't sure now when the grand jury voted to indict Rove, although he said he remains confident that it did so before last Friday. He said that he isn't sure what's going on now to warrant keeping the alleged indictment under wraps, although he suggested that it must mean that Rove's team is cooperating with Fitzgerald somehow.

Finally, Ash said that "there are people whose life was made inconvenient by our story," and that "not all of them are Karl Rove or people beholden to Karl Rove." Who are they? "I can't tell you any more than that," Ash said. Is one of them Leopold? "You're making my life complicated now," Ash said.

Of course, good stories often inconvenience people and complicate lives, and they seldom contain every last fact about the steps that led up to or might follow the developments they report. If that's all that's "wrong" about Leopold's reporting, there's no need for Truthout to apologize for anything.

So, once again, why the "partial apology" now?

Ash said that Truthout needs to "cool down the reactor a little bit" as it tries to learn more about the "cycle" on which Fitzgerald's legal team is working. "We're not in a position to continue on without an official confirmation," he said. "Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider and stupider."

Those were his words, not ours.

Marc Ash (in full)
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.

We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)

We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up. "I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.

Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - 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.

We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.
Corallo's response, via jeralyn:
Now for Mr. Carallo's response:

1. Truthout's claims remain demonstrably false. They are "utter lies. There is not a shred of truth to them."

2. Neither Rove, his lawyer Bob Luskin or Patrick Fitzgerald were at Patton Boggs on Friday or Saturday. There was no meeting and no communication of any kind.

3. Karl Rove has not been indicted. He has not been told he has been indicted. He has not been told he is a target. His status remains unchanged.

4. Those reporting to the contrary are "bald-faced liars or completely delusional or both."

5. There have been no discussions of any deals whatsoever between Fitzgerald's team and Rove's team. Not once in all the years this has been going on.

6. Truthout does not have sources in position to know what they claim they were told. There is no one at Patton Boggs who provided this information. It's laughable. If any sources exist, they have lied to Truthout.

7. Corallo did give Marc Ash's phone number to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. He knew that Kurtz was writing a story about how, in Corallo's words, the mainstream media had to "follow up on the lunacy and these frauds who are passing themselves off as legitimate journalists."
who's lying/wrong?

this from marc ash ought bring a smile to the lips:
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... Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.


Kathleen said...

Yes Valerie, there is a God and when all gets said and done, we'll have conspiracy charges against the NeoNutzis in the WHIG. Won't that be peachy?

lukery said...

im-peachy indeed.

conspiracy charges against WHIG really is the holy grail. fingers (and everything else) x'd

Miguel said...

I honestly don't know who to believe at this point. I'd like to say I believe Truthout, but they keep changing their story. Remember when Leopold was going to "out" his source? Leopold is full of it and has no credibility.

lukery said...

miguel - you are correct that leopold is low on credibility - but my read (fwiw) is that there's more to TO's claims than to the denials.

time will tell

Kathleen said...

Leopold is not wrong because the indictments were seealed rather than released to the public. It sounds like Abu Gonzales tried to put a kibosh on the proceedings.