NY Sun: Rove Indictment Report Denied

[tritsofme]

A spokesman for a top White House aide under scrutiny in a criminal leak probe, Karl Rove, yesterday vigorously denied an Internet report that the political adviser to President Bush was told that he had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

"The story is a complete fabrication," the spokesman for Mr. Rove, Mark Corallo, told The New York Sun. "It is both malicious and disgraceful."

http://www.nysun.com/article/32727

The rest is subscriber only.

I don't know anything about the NY Sun, but it seems like they are the only ones reporting this denial.

[wakeme2008]

1. Notice it is a "spokesman for Mr. Rove" NOT

one of his attorneys.

I think that says it all....

[MADem]

59. Hey, Tweety was first out of the gate with this story!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/12/matthews-on-rove-indictment-it-could-be-today/

He had it pegged for last FRIDAY!!! Where are the outraged statements calling HIM a scurrilous liar?

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. NY Sun

is not a reliable source.

They are a tool of the rabid right.

[BooScout]

3. (Leopold responds)

The NYSun is not a great source.....which is why when I posted it earlier I put it in the thread that's been running all weekend rather than give it any sort of credit.

Here's a response:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014842.html

Leopold Responds to Corallo's Denial of Fitzgerald - Luskin Meeting

Last night, I spoke to Jason Leopold on the phone for a half hour or so. Here's what he had to say about Byron York's article stating that Karl Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo told him that Jason's article Saturday reporting sources told him Fitzgerald met with Luskin Friday and told him Rove has been indicted is false.

1. Jason says he spoke with Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun and Gerstein told him Corallo called both York and Gerstein, not the other way around. In other words, Corallo reached out to a few select reporters to debunk Jason's article. Corallo told Gerstein, as he told York, Jason's article reporting Rove has been indicted is a baseless lie. A New York Sun article today reports Carollo's comments to the paper.

2. Before Jason published his article, he left messages with both Corallo and Luskin offering an opportunity to respond. Neither returned his calls.

3. Jason spoke to Corallo twice on Saturday and twice on Sunday. The first time they spoke Saturday was after Jason's article was published. Corallo told Jason the article was lies and hung up. As I reported here, I e-mailed with Jason Saturday evening. Jason had provided me with two numbers each for Mark Corallo and Robert Luskin. After my non-conversation with Robert Luskin, I e-mailed Jason that I had also left a message for Corallo at his office, since no one answered at the other number he gave me.


(more)

[wordpix2]

16. if it's such a fabrication, why won't Luskin and Corallo talk to reporters

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. Thanks....I appreciated getting a chance to read those comments.

[caledesi]

60. No word from ANY lawyers about a such a defaming article?

Not even at least the perfunctory "no comment.,"

There's your smoking gun....game over....I thin Jason is right.

Why would any lawyer allow this kind of stuff "out and out" saying Rove has been indicted and do nothing? Because it's true! <I hope, LOL!)



RIBBIT ROVE


edit: typo

[Copperred]

54. Not even Right...they were specifically setup to support a foreign agenda.

Seth Lipsky...Publisher

[caledesi]

61. Notice how when Matt Drudge reports, it is seriously listened to

Oh yeah, that was clinton....never mind.

(They had better no pull this "Internet crap" about being unreliable.)



RIBBIT ROVE

[Garbo 2004]

4. NY Sun has beem a conduit for Libby's defense leaks. Most notably a Fitz

legal filing not yet available to the public as I recall. Remember the "Bush authorized CIA leak" media flap that had corporate media scrambling and then retracting/clarifying that it was not in reference to the Plame leak itself? That was based on the NY Sun headline and story, leaked to it by Libby's side. They even had a .pdf of Fitz's filing available on their site for download at a time, as I recall, it was not yet available from the official legal doc/Fitz websites. Then the next day the NY Sun viciously attacked Fitz in an editorial.

Remember the judge in the case getting pissed and threatening to impose a gag order as a result of Libby's team's leaks?

The NY Sun is an established media conduit for these guys. (Judy Miller isn't available these days. ;) )

[BooScout]

5. BTW, Corallo is not a WH spokesman, he's a Rove spokesman..

Just a wee difference.

[Garbo 2004]

6. Yup, he's the PR flack for Rove's defense team, not a WH employee. n/t

[rodeodance]

27. yes, and Luskin told Left talk to call Mark-not him.

[rpannier]

7. To be totally honest

I've been taking the report of his indictment with a grain of salt.
I'm taking the approach "Hope for the best, but expect the worst."
I'm hoping he's indicted, but I'm not betting on it.

[hippiechick]

19. Bingo.

And thats how we all should be thinking re: this issue.
Alas, again, cooler heads are not prevailing. :(

[caledesi]

62. Hey I think Jason is right, but I am still cautiously optimistic. nt

[BooScout]

8. Who is voting this for the greatest page?

The NYSun is crap journalism. It ain't fit for the greatest.:eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. There are those who seem to enjoy....

...trashing Leopold, Will Pitt, and Truthout.

[arwalden]

28. Oh, Whaaaaa!.

:cry: :cry: :cry:

[Chomskyite]

56. Since truthout gave us Wayne Madsen . . .

. . . I'm none-too credulous of their latest offerings. But if proper skepticism to you means trashing and if you think I "enjoy" skepticism, you'd of course be wrong.

[Seabiscuit]

57. I don't really think there's anyone on DU who enjoys that -

We're all hoping Leopold's story is true.

If it's false, Leopold (and Pitt who staked his reputation on posting it here, attesting unequivocably to its truth) owes everyone an explanation (and a much better one than his terse response to the Sun story).

[tulsakatz]

9. yeah, right!

What else is he gonna say? After all of their lies and we're supposed to believe them now?

Whether or not Rove has been indicted, their answer would still be the same!

And the fact they say it's malicious and disgraceful is just more right wing BS!! They seem to think that if they act outraged, people will be more likely to believe them.

[Azathoth]

10. I'm gonna go out on a limb here

If Fitzgerald had actually indicted Rove (as Leopold asserts), or if he had made clear his intention to indict him early this week, then I doubt Mr. Corallo would have issued this unqualified denial. If Leopold's story was true, I suspect we would be hearing a lot of carefully worded non-denial denials and "no comments" right about now.

[caledesi]

63. Yes, and from his lawyers! nt

[babylonsister]

11. Corallo "planted" the info, per Leopold. Calm down, people! nt

[grytpype]

13. What would be the point of that?

If a sealed indictment was really filed on Friday, and is going to be revealed today, what would be the point of denying it now?

[babylonsister]

15. To hold all other news outlets at bay while they get the

correct spin down? Whatever the reason, you know it's self-serving.
And I haven't read an actual specific date when anything is going to be revealed, other
than this week sometime. I hadn't read 'today'.

[Polemicist]

33. Team Rove may still hope for a plea bargain...

breakthrough that would sidestep the indictment issue. Remember how DeLay maneuvered until the 13 hour to prevent his indictment from being made public. High office holders and Top administration officials can remain in their positions while being investigated, but know they must resign and step down if indicted.

I'm not an attorney, but I'm guessing if the indictment was served under seal and not made public through the press, and then if a plea bargain is subsequently agreed upon, the indictment could be withdrawn.

Any lawyers out there that could answer this?

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. Forget it

...

[Polemicist]

67. Forget what?

If I'm incorrect, I'm a big boy and can stand bing corrected. But you got to present something more than a "forget it". Please share with us what you think and why you think it and I'll be happy to consider your perspective and facts.

But I'm not going to "forget anything" based upon no factual information. Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

[Marie26]

52. To discredit the blogs?

I could see really see Rove's team secretly planting a false story w/left-wing blogs & news sites - and then vigorously denying it on the record to mainstream news sites. When the story is proven false, it completely discredits the liberal media & blogs that reported this story. It's very sneaky & Rovian.

[CoffeeCat]

65. I was wondering the same thing...

...Is it possible that someone has been "Ratherized?"

Was incorrect information put out there, to discredit the blogs? They hate the blogs.

We all know that Rove is capable of it.

[Demeter]

12. Well, That Makes It Official--His Ass Is Grass

It only takes an official denial to positively confirm any story out of Washington these days.

[JuniperLea]

26. There ya go! n/t

[Orsino]

14. So the vigorous denial is of...

...*'s having been told that Rove would be indicted?

Buh-bye, Karl.

[lonestarnot]

29. ewww tarl nobody told you yet.... hmmmmmf.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. "Spokesman", not lawyer. If Rove's spokesman is used in the....

...same way as the White House spokesman is used, he won't know anything about Rove's indictment until it's time for it to become public knowledge.

[HuffleClaw]

20. still sounds like this whole thing has been one serious ratfuck

you'd think the MSM would be at least NIBBLING around the edges of the story by now if it was true.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. Okay....let me see if I understand this. The captive MSM has....

...lived in total fear of Rove's power to cut them out of the loop on important stories, and to ruin their careers if they step out of line. If they can destroy Rather's career, they can destroy anyone.

Additionally, the captive MSM has relied for far too long on getting their stories handed to them by the political right wing, and have therefore cultivated very few sources. anonymous or otherwise, on their own. They are being outworked and out-hustled by the blogs and other online news sources, people who are smart, aggressive, and know how to cultivate and maintain sources.

Based on the above comments, it does not surprise me in the least that the captive MSM is not making any comments about Rove's indictment until a public announcement is made.

[Azathoth]

23. So the MSM is willing to talk endlessly about the Rove investigation...

but not a single one of them is willing to actually break the news that he has been indicted, an event that everyone, including most of the talking heads, has been publicly anticipating for months? Give me a break.

[Roy]

47. MSM

MSM would never pass up a chance to discredit a liberal Blog.

[aquart]

38. eh. the excitement is simply how much we want it to be true.

and I have this simple religious purity that it will be. either Karl sings or gets indicted or maybe both.

I would LOVE to know the sticking point on the plea.


The MSM were nibbling. The NY daily news, at least, tried to get confirmation.

[caledesi]

64. If it were Matt Drudge....sure. nt

[hadrons]

24. NY Post laughs at the New York Sun ....

[rodeodance]

30. quite the pecking order!

[JuniperLea]

25. KKKarl's spokesman denies it, so it must be true

If you are waiting for the talking heads and alphabet news agencies to report it, you have to wait for the WH to do so. That's how they operate. They cannot report that which is still want for spin! The news release pattern is set in stone. I'm shocked that so many here still think there is any actual news reporting going on, investigative or otherwise, in the homogenized and pasteurized cable and broadcast news world. What HAS been reported in bizarro WH controlled news world is that Rove will step down if indicted. They would never go that far with the story if there wasn't something brewing.

Be patient, oh citizens of instant gratification society.

[Auntie Bush]

48. Now that's a post I can agree with. Thanks! I hope you're right. n/t

[arwalden]

31. What Has RAW STORY Learned About It?

Their stellar reporters are always on top of things... they've always got the inside track to the best press releases and AP stories! I trust them the MOST!

There's no substitute for fine quality investigative reporting.

[Igel]

34. Rawstory was the

one pushing the 22-count indictment the last time around; absolutely, positively, those indictments had been issued.

I don't recall their spin on what happened to them; perhaps Fitzgerald's still got them under his pillow.

As dear Noam would say, whether or not the indictments have been handed up is an empirical question.

[stepnw1f]

32. Are They Trying to Buy Time

for the immigration grand standing to take some effect on the public before announcing his resignation and indictment? Why would they deny such a thing? What purpose would it be?

[sunnystarr]

35. Isn't Rove giving a policy speech this morning?

plus Bush has his immigration prime time tripe ... they probably don't want to be upstaged by indictment news ... who knows maybe this is just time they bought from Fitz to set their stage.

[sunnystarr]

36. Isn't Rove giving a policy speech this morning?

plus Bush has his immigration prime time tripe ... they probably don't want to be upstaged by indictment news ... who knows maybe this is just time they bought from Fitz to set their stage.

[Marie26]

50. So why doesn't Fitz have

a press conference scheduled today? (I checked his site). Last time, he announced the press conf. way in advance in order to give the media time to set up. There's no way he can be announcing an indictment today (and I suspect he won't be announcing an indictment at all this week).

[enough already]

51. I'm confused by all of this

Would they allow Rove to give a policy speech if they knew an indictment was coming down today? Maybe Rove has enough dirt on everyone in the white house to tell them all to go to hell and he just does whatever he wants. I can't wait any longer for this to happen.

[AlCzervik]

37. i'm remaining cautiously optimistic as i have from the beginning.

[Peace Patriot]

39. Get smart, DUers! And get tough! Are we going to let the sharks eat our

own, if that's what's happened? We saw the Calif Democrats do that to Kevin Shelley. We saw CBS do it to Dan Rather. We've seen any number of good people picked off by what are probably black operations (as well as swiftboating)--including the victims of Plamegate--often with fairweather friends abandoning them. WHEN are we going to start protecting our own? WHEN?

If this has been a sting to destroy these left blogs, are we going to go along with it--and COMPLETE THEIR WORK FOR THEM? Or are we going to protect our comrades in arms as best we can, and save our fire for the enemy?

I say sit tight. There is plenty of evidence that Rove is in Fitzgerald's sights and is guilty of crimes in this case, including the main crime. This may be the culmination of the case, wherein things are occurring behind the scenes--sealed indictments, deals, negotiations--that could bring this junta down, once and for all. It should be no surprise to any of us if there is disinformation, planted information, psyops, swiftboating, vengeance scenarios within the regime AND within news organizations, including our own, and god knows what all. We have got to realize what an absolutely filthy and dangerous snakepit Washington DC--AND its press corps--has become. There has been nothing like it in our history. If people like Jason and Will have been hurt, we have GOT TO REALIZE that this is NO ACCIDENT; it is malevolent; and we MUST NOT COOPERATE WITH IT.

If the worst has happened, in regard to this story (Rove telling WH he's been indicted)--that our people have been CBS-ed--then we need to examine the sources and find out who did this to them--just in the same manner that Fitzgerald is investigating Plamegate. There is simply NO WAY that OUR people reported this in bad faith. I know these writers' works too well. It is not possible. The question would then be, who disinformed them and why?

I tend to think they have it right--based on the details of the case. But who knows? For instance, this could be a matter of a sealed indictment that we will never see, in which a deal is being made to give up, Cheney, say, and let Rove finish his dirty work for November (...ahem). Also, IF there is such a deal, it could be a Rovian tactic of disinformationists in the WH to nuke a couple of left blogs along the way, as part of a Bushite "comeback" narrative for November, which Diebold/ES&S, of course, would be the real implementers of.

We also have to realize that this story--Plamegate--more than any other in our history, has utterly slimed the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. Monopolies on power are MEAN, NASTY, DANGEROUS, SLIMY BEASTS, especially with upstarts chipping away at their power. These giant news monopolies DIRECTLY COLLUDED in two stolen elections, in war, mass death and torture, and in Plamegate itself, that is, in treason. They are in collusion not only with the Bush junta and its Dem collaborators, but also with each other. They may well decide to BLACK OUT the Rove indictment, if it is coming. Bury it. Put it in the "People" box along with the movie star divorces. Blackhole it. Trivialize it. And pump up Bush as the "comeback kid." This is VERY POSSIBLE. And if that decision has been made by the five billionaires who control all the "news" in this country, THAT is why we haven't heard diddle about it. They managed to turn the Libby indictment (one of the most powerful men in the country) into a backpager. They may be RIGHT NOW figuring out how to do that for Rove. They could also be IN ON a sting against Truthout and other left blogs. That is NOT an outlandish idea; it is the MOST PROBABLE thing that has happened, if the Rove story is not true.

We obviously have to wait and see how all this comes down. To DUers, I repeat: Get smart! Get tough! And, for godssakes, start THINKING THINGS THROUGH.

[robcon]

41. I can't let this statement pass....

Peace Patriot wrote: "There is simply NO WAY that OUR people reported this in bad faith. I know these writers' works too well. It is not possible. The question would then be, who disinformed them and why?"

No way... bad faith???? Given the fact that Leopold has admitted to doing this many times before?????

I think we have to withhold judgements like that. We have to wait for Fitzmas. And that means an announcemnt by Fitz's office.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. I'll go further: it doesn't matter if it was reported in good faith

If it is false, then both the reporter and the editors exercised extremely poor judgment, judgment not befitting journalism.

Substituting wish-fulfillment for reporting is one thing, but why should anyone who does such a thing be taken seriously any more?

[LeahD]

68. I read in another thread that Jason Leopold

will out his sources, if the story doesn't pan out.

[laundry_queen]

42. Thank you Peace Patriot.

You are a voice of reason in this debacle.

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Nice speech

But the question is this: was Rove indicted already or wasn't he?

Jason Leopold reported that he was. That the indictment has already been delivered by the grand jury, and exists under seal. That it's a done deal.

Now, did this actually happen or didn't it? If it did, then Leopold and truthout got a huge scooped, and deserves applause. If it didn't, then the story is false, Leopold a hack, and the judgment of the truthout editors in serious question.

[brentspeak]

58. Who's "our own"?

I owe no loyalty (or disloyalty) to truthout, Jason Leopold, Will Pitt, rawstory, bradblog, etc. I won't defend their reporting simply because they're allegedly on "our" side. I don't allow partisanship to steer my judgment.

[goforit]

69. Here!Here!! agreed! Time to use their own medicine on them!! THINK!!!

Time to put our heads together!!
Time for these thugs to fall in their own pile of shit!!!

Set ups...eh?

Well this game CAN be played by all!!!!

[debbierlus]

40. Wait. IF an indictment comes, we will know

I believe he will be indicted, but I am waiting for the word from Fitz.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. That's beside the point

The story said that he WAS ALREADY indicted. The question is whether this story is true or false.

It was not a prediction. It was a statement of fact, supposedly based on reliable sources. If it is false, then the credibility of the reporter and the organ are in question.

[Marie26]

49. Looks like the scoop

is DOA. Really, if he'd been indicted, you'd think the lawyer would just say "no comment", you'd think Fitz would have a press conference scheduled, etc. etc. This really just sounds like a rumor - and I wonder who started it.

[The Stranger]

53. THE DA (FITZGERALD) HAS TO FILE THE INDICTMENT, RIGHT?

So if it hasn't been filed (which can be easily determined by looking at the court's file), then the story is correct and there is no indictment.

(Unless there are circumstances where it would not be filed, but if there are, I am unfamiliar with them.)

[Chomskyite]

55. Speaking of truthout. . .

. . . what is Wayne Madsen up to lately?

[bdamomma]

66. malicious and disgraceful

I would say the same thing about all of them.

[Barrett808]

70. Truthout stands by the story:

How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story?

On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on both counts.

What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment.

In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched.

We had confirmation. We ran the story.

Truthout email, 5/15/2006

[robcon]

71. I think Truthout was had.

"In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched."

Since the meeting at Patton, Boggs never happened, Truthout was deceived by Leopold, who somehow got a 'source' to confirm something that did not happen.