Thursday, June 15, 2006

when they stand up, we'll stand down.

Standing Down on the Rove Matter

By Marc Ash,

Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 06:52:40 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

Yesterday, most Mainstream Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. As an example of the supposed letter's contents, TIME Magazine stated that, "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said or wrote, 'Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"

Truthout of course published an article on May 13 which reported that Karl Rove had in fact already been indicted. Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications.

In that Mr. Luskin has chosen the commercial press as his oracle - and they have accepted - we call upon those publications to make known the contents of the communiqué which Luskin holds at the center of his assertions. Quoting only those snippets that Mr. Luskin chooses to characterize in his statements is not enough. If Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to exonerate Mr. Rove, let his words - in their entirety - be made public.

Reporter Jason Leopold

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.

The Confidentiality of Our Sources

As journalists, nothing is more critical to being able to report guarded facts than the guarantee of confidentiality we provide to our sources. Truthout has never compromised the identy of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story, as we have on every other story we have ever published.

Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19.

Marc Ash
Executive Director - Truthout


Don said...

Two points:

1) It is still telling at this point that despite rumblings early on in this affair that there is still no indication of Ash, Leopold, or TruthOut being served papers for libel

2) At the risk of participating in wild, unfounded speculation, why June 19th?

On #2 I was going to say "encouraging wild, unfounded speculation" but somehow, I don't think anyone reading this will need encouragement.

ewastud said...

It astounds me that so many news outlets will simply take the word of Rove's attorney as the final word on this matter on faith after Rove's history of lies and Luskin's own dubious record as a defense attorney for drug traffickers, accepting gold bars in payment for his services. The various news media cannot even agree in their reportage on whether Luskin received the information by letter or verbally, and Luskin is unwilling to clarify even that minor point of fact. With Fitzgerald deliberately remaining silent on the question, the claim by Luskin about Rove is a non-story and not credible on the face of it. If there is any truth in released statement at all, it is probably outweighed by other facts of the case they are not disclosing. In short, why should anyone believe anythng that comes out of the mouths of consummate liars?

lukery said...

don - lol. encourage away!

i read 'june 19' - simply as being monday - so they can have the weekend to consider and strategerize and whatnot.

good point re libel

lukery said...

ewastud - totally agree. i suspect there's a letter/fax of some description - but i bet you a gazillion dollars that it doesnt come close to saying 'exoneration'

i'm tempted to think that rove has rolled on cheney - although the apparent glee in the rove camp yesterday would tend to point away from that...

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be handy if Luskin was leaving out a single word, like "additional" in front of charges?

Just wildly pondering ... but seriously:

A no-bill (not indicting) or an acquittal (not convicting) never are synonymous with exhonorating. Anyone saying that is ignorant.

It would be unwise for a prosecutor to present charges to a judge who usurped the case but could not be relied on to apply the law (hypothetically speaking, of course), because the specific charges could never be tried again if that judge were to dismiss charges with prejudice (meaning with judgment, as opposed to "without prejudice," which means you can come back for a second bite of the apple) ... for example, dismissing charges under guise of national security (again, hypothetically speaking, of course).

As long as there is no Rove trial, there remains an opportunity to charge him of anything at any time, perhaps in another court in time, within statutes of limitation for any potential charge. Does treason have any time limit?

Miguel said...

I wouldn't put too much stock in the "no libel suit" yet. I doubt Rove would ever file a libel suit. Truthout may have just handed the GOP a small but enticing victory by feeding into the "loony left, conspiracy theorists" mentality.

I will withold my judgment until Monday. It does, however, make me nervous when Jason Leopold tells the world that he is going to "out" his sources- then his boss says that ain't going to happen. It also makes me nervous that Leopold claimed he had "five sources" confirming the story. That seemed to me at the time and it seems to me know way over the top.

Like I said, I am witholding judgment until Monday. But as much as my heart is telling me the story is true but there was some bizarre circumstance that caused Rove to get off the hook, my head is telling me that there may have been some exxageration if not outright fabrication.

I hope my head is proven wrong.

Kathleen said...

I believe I am correct when I say that Judge Walton, hearing the Libby Case, just this past Monday requested clarification of the status of the Plame investigation, no doubt to determine who would be called to testify.

My guess is that Fitz, in response to Judge Walton's request, wrote a letter to Rove, whose testimony he needs in the Libby case. To guarantee that Rove will testify and not take the 5th, I beleive that Fitz imposed immunity on Rove to force him to answer questions, or be indicted for obstruction of justice. He may not be indicated for leaking Plame's name, but he could be inidicted for conspiracy to defraud Congress and the people.

By taking away the legal need for Rove taking the 5th, Fitz boxes him into giving up the whole goddamned WHIG or be indicted for obstruction.

I checked the link to read up on transactional and use immunity and read further, where I discovered 'Imposed Immunity". I said, Ah, hah. I love this concept because it does not require Rove to request it. Rove has no choice. He's forced to take it. YESSSSS!!!! I love the idea of Rove not calling the shots, and not having any say about it but being told what he FUCKING HAS to do, or be FUCKED HIMSELF.

Skewered little pink piggy. Oink, oink, You're bacon. Anybody wanna bet?

Kathleen said...

P.S. Think about the timing of this. Dopey and Darth and, it looks like most of the WHIG group, books it to Camp David to hide when they know Fitz has to go back into Court for a Hearing this past Monday, then upstages the whole show buy spiriting off to Iraq, to drown out the headlines and give journalists too much to discuss to ask to see "The Letter". If Luskin got a letter exonerating Rove, wouldn't he have plastered it all over the place?

Instead we had Commander Codpiece, dashing in and out of the Green Zone for a Photo Op and bop back to the Rose Garden to play Alpha Male with a blind man. Boy, talk about Freudian. What if we all took off our shades?

I think they were expecting the worst. But Fitz has gone for the slow fuse. The Big Bang is just around the corner. I can wait till the 4th of July.

lukery said...

anon - yep - "additional" would really be a treat. and yep, there appears to be some wiggle-room in fitz's apparent statement re bringing charges at some later point. fingers crossed.

miguel - larisa described TO's process on the radio yesterday, and she also thinks some "bizarre circumstance" may have appeared. i'll try to write up a transcript later.

kathleen - the 'imposed immunity scenario sounds great. lets hope that rove is being played by mister fitzer.

and yep - the whole timing thing was a bit weird (even excluding rove). remember the ballyhoo about bush going to lock himself away for a war council, and how he's getting serious and all that - and he left the first day to go watch some movie, and then the following day he was photo-generatin in iraq.