Mudcat Café message #1760503 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #82879   Message #1760503
Posted By: GUEST,Woody
15-Jun-06 - 07:38 AM
Thread Name: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar???
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar???

< font size=1>

In 2002, retracted an article by Leopold which had implicated Bush administration official Thomas White in the Enron scandal after it could not verify that the contents of the article were accurate. Afterwards, Leopold and's editor engaged in an online debate over the incident with Leopold sticking to his story and the editor accusing Leopold of a separate plagiarism incident. [1] [2]

"Off the Record"

Prior to writing News Junkie, Mr. Leopold had written a book entitled Off the Record. The book's release was permanently cancelled, however, following reported legal threats from Steven Maviglio, allegedly one of the subjects of the book. [3] In that book, Mr. Leopold planned to reveal many secrets of his life as a journalist such as a prior drug addiction, bouts with mental illness and suicide attempts, breaking journalistic rules, and lying to employers about a criminal conviction. [4]

Reports of Karl Rove indictments in 2006
        This article documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

On May 13th, 2006, Mr. Leopold reported on the progressive website that Karl Rove had been indicted. [5] The story spread quickly throughout the blogosphere[6]. Rove spokesman Mark Corallo issued a flat denial of Leopold's story, calling it "a complete fabrication". [7] On May 15th, Executive Director Marc Ash defended the story, saying they had more than two sources with corroborating information. [8] On May 18th, Ash provided another update, saying that they had found additional sources as well as three "network level" reporters who offered "off-the-record confirmation and moral support". [9] On May 19th, Ash issued a "partial apology" for "getting too far out in front of the news-cycle". He said "we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being."[10] Currently, is the only news outlet reporting Karl Rove has been indicted [11] and there is still no evidence or confirmation that Rove was indicted on May 12th.[12] [13]

On May 26th, Ash reaffirmed that several independent sources existed to back up Leopold's story, and added that "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." Ash speculated: "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."[14]

On June 3, 2006, Ash released another follow-up on the story, stating that "Right now we have only general indicators as to why an announcement might not be made when an indictment has been returned. And even though these indicators do exist, we need to more clearly understand exactly what is happening in this case before we can report on them." [15]

On June 12, Leopold wrote claiming that the indictment of Rove was in federal case number 06 cr 128, tantalizingly titled "Sealed vs. Sealed." Leopold acknowledges that the grand jury that handed down this sealed decision also meet to discuss other cases, but contends that "legal experts watching the Plame-Wilson investigation have been paying particularly close attention to Sealed vs. Sealed since the Karl Rove indictment story was published. The legal scholars have said that a federal prosecutor can keep an indictment under seal for weeks or months - something that is commonplace in high-profile criminal cases - especially if an investigation, such as the CIA leak probe, is ongoing."[16]

On June 13, Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, released a statement that said Fitzgerald "has formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges [against Rove]...[and] we believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct." [17] [18] Nevertheless, Ash continued to stand by Leopold's story and questioned the accuracy of Luskin's statement, saying "the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have." [19]