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

[VolcanoJen]

From TalkLeft:

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.

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.

Read more....

[WilliamPitt]

1. "...a few select reporters..."

Like Pete Daou.

Sad.

Truthout fired him for a reason.

[spuddonna]

4. Hey...

:hug: Hang in there. The truth is like sunlight to a vampire for these bastards. They will do everything they can to try to discredit and smear anyone who is trying to bring the light...

[genieroze]

36. Discredit what? Either Rove was indicted or not.

[Cooley Hurd]

10. Fired him? No shit...

I would hope he'd be professional enough not let his personal feelings/experiences with TO bubble over in that article.

Maybe not?

[seaglass]

17. That was petty. n/t

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. "8. Jason thinks the announcement of Rove's indictment will come any time

after tuesday"

Keep this in mind, people, before you go for pitchforks?

[VolcanoJen]

3. And keep this in mind, too...

Bottom line: I believe Jason's sources told him what he reported. Were the sources accurate? Were they basically right but just mistaken on a few of the legal technicalities due to an unfamiliarity with the jargon? Time will tell. If they lied, Jason has promised to disclose their identities.

I would just caution everyone not to be impatient. Let it play out.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

5. And this last caveat...

"One last note on former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson's comment on Democratic Underground that Joseph Wilson received the same information as Jason: Some have questioned whether Larry really wrote the comment, or whether it was an imposter. I e-mailed Larry, and he responded, indeed it was him. He added,

Joe heard the same things but not from Jason. If these multiple sources are lying then I certainly hope Jason outs their a*s. "

[WiseButAngrySara]

6. Patience and No Pitchforks! ....n/t

[hwmnbn]

13. Pitchforks come later, right? ...........

I think even the Frankenstein monster would poll higher than the chimp right now. :grr:

[insane_cratic_gal]

26. What's DU without pitchforks!

:evilgrin:

[hwmnbn]

37. The DNC ......... nt

[mrdmk]

43. But I just sharpened and covered my pitchfork with pig-fat!

:evilfrown:

[H2O Man]

14. Very good advice. n/t

[cantstandbush]

18. I agree with you. time will tell. n/t

[Kagemusha]

7. Classic "three sides to every story"...

Given the amount of non-love Leopold's had lately around here, I would like to proclaim that I don't think that a paid PR hack not sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to a pair of reporters while putting out spin about a federal grand jury investigation deserves to be embraced as instantly and defiantly credible. It's not in the part quoted by VolcanoJen (due to length) but, Corallo himself with his own two lips and one tongue apparently backtracked from the absolutist statements he was making, saying it was just what he'd been told. (Key point: PR flacks are paid to say what they're told and sound convincing.)

I didn't notice Daou saying he'd personally been called; he seemed to be just quoting York. That's purely on memory. Of course, why he should regard York as more credible without personal knowledge of the situation, I don't know. And obviously York's source is a paid PR flack in the first place.

I have no knowledge concerning Daou being fired from Truthout but well, this is ressembling a free for all food fight now. Real pity - forget DU, the knives are out among journalists all by themselves. I want Leopold to be right, for the record.

[BooScout]

8. Thanks for clarifying....

I caught the NYSun article this morning and added it to the LBN thread before I saw this. I did say to consider the source. I think I am more than willing to see how it all plays out. I am betting on an indictment being announced before end of business Wednesday.

[Garbo 2004]

9. Ah, the NY Sun...Libby's team leaked a not yet publicly available Fitz

filing to the NY Sun as I recall. Remember the article and pdf that for a time was only available from the Sun? And then the rest of the corporate media went bonkers and went with some bad info based on the Sun's story as "breaking news?" And then the next day the Sun attacked Fitz in an editorial.

[H2O Man]

15. Correct.

Mr. Fitzgerald's letter to the court, changing a phrase in one sentence, was "leaked" to this paper, against the clear instructions of Judge Walton. The defense team was called on it by the judge.

[Cooley Hurd]

11. This is important to note...

...it explains a bit about the process:

From a legal standpoint (and keep in mind Jason, and for all I know, his sources are not lawyers) it makes more sense to me that Fitz would want a final answer from Rove Monday so that he could prepare his final argument for the grand jury on Tuesday and seek its approval of the Indictment Wednesday. Even if Fitz submitted charges to the grand jury last week for its consideration, it doesn't mean they actually voted on them. Perhaps they began discussion last week and continued deliberations until they met again this week.

[tulsakatz]

12. thanks for the info....

....I still believe Leopold!!! Not only because of the great story he wrote but because there are just too many things that point to a possible indictment.

[demobabe]

16. Another thing I find interesting

Is the choice of publications that ran the story denying Leopold's report. Two notoriously right wing pubs - not the New York Times or a more credible source. I still am skeptical of Leopold's story, but it is interesting the story was placed in papers where if they're wrong, their reputation isn't going to suffer like the NY Times's would.

[Justice]

19. Good point

[symbolman]

20. Looks like Leopold's gift that keeps on giving

is bringing standing Ovations..

Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1191164

Only one problem, they completely and utterly HUMILIATED heavy hitter Progressives, democrats, Lawyers, and even Hillary Clinton..

This will make GREAT footage for the right wing during the election cycle.

"Do you really want people running this country, our national security from terrorists, when they can't even tell the difference between a RUMOR and a FACT?"

So much for THIS election..

thanks Jason, thanks loads..

The shit is now officially hitting the fan, a LOSE LOSE situation.

[Kagemusha]

21. They'd have said those things anyway.

And they were saying it before this and will continue saying it afterwards.

Besides uh... Vince Foster murder, anyone? Cast out the pole sticking out of thine own eye...

[Patrick J Fitzgerald]

22. I will bring Dick Cheney to his knees...

it does not stop at Karl. :)

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com

[mdmc]

23. time alone, time will tell

we think that this is heaven when it really is hell.

[madmunchie]

27. O.K. call me stupid, but is this really THE Patrick Fitzgerald posting all

of this, or is it somebody else? I am not that familiar with "blogs" so I really don't know.

[Kagemusha]

28. If it was him it'd go counter to all publicly known about the man

It's about as credible as the Wikipedia entry on Leopold showing the May 13th, 2006 story on Rove being an "apparent fabrication" or some such thing. Apparent? Arguable. Proven? Hell no.

[madmunchie]

30. That was my first thought. It didn't seem like something he would be doin

g. I mean, it would seem to me that he would be a bit too busy to spend time "blogging". But like I said before, being unfamiliar with "blogs", I don't want to discount something that I may be wrong about. The content (although I looked briefly) didn't seem like Patrick Fitzgerald content either.

[H2O Man]

29. No.

It is most likely one of two things: {1} a college student with a sense of humor impaired by too strong marijuana; or {2} a mutant Elvis impersonator.

Or it could be both. But it is not the prosecutor.

[madmunchie]

31. Thanks, my gut didn't lie to me

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Time will tell

as to what the RW says, they say this with or without Leopold...

[MelissaB]

25. I think we all know how you think/feel about this.

You post it at almost every opportunity. I wish you would consider how this makes us (me) view your website and projects. I've donated in the past, but at this point wouldn't.

[Halliburton]

32. if there is no indictment by Wednesday

then it's fair to conclude that Leopold's article was total BS. regardless if Rove is indicted somewhere down the road, Leopold's assertion that the indictments were handed up or that Fitz was at Luskins' office presenting charges will have turned out to be wrong.

[johnaries]

35. "AFTER Tuesday" - the EARLIEST would be Wednesday.

Most likely Thursday or Friday, judging by the past. Fitz always makes sure his ducks are in a row and doesn't rush anything.

[Minnesota_Lib]

33. There is perhaps one other senerio....

and that is that, yes, this is a Rovian setup, not of Jason Leopold, but of a few "lower level" White House staffers suspected of being leakers.

This WH is notorious for its paranoia about secrecy. With all the scandals rocking DC these days--and seemingly more breaking with each passing week--it may be that they want to "shore up" suspected leaks. This seems plausible with new revelations breaking every few days not only over Plamegate but the Goss/Foggo/Cummingham affair, NSA domestic spying as well as other scandals known and as of yet unknown. There also may be other issues they want to keep close to the vest such as an impending Iran invasion, dirty tricks and smear campaigns for the upcoming elections, and God knows what other nefarious plans they may have.

Could it be that a false story was fed to a handful of staffers going into a weekend when it would be less likely for any reporters to confirm some of the details in order to ferret out suspected leakers at a time in which the WH can ill afford any more leaks?

At this time, I don't really believe this is the case but it does seem like at least a possibility.

[johnaries]

34. Everyone please notice: "AFTER TUESDAY"!

So please don't get your panties bunched if nothing is released today or tomorrow. The EARLIEST an announcement would be made is Wednesday, and probably not until Thursday or Friday.

Patience, grasshoppers!

[TrogL]

38. Award: Most confusing post ever

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

I am totally, utterly lost. :shrug:

:wtf: is going on?

[youngred]

39. I happen to work at the bar across the street from Patton Boggs

and there were an unusual number of motorcades that made stops at Patton Boggs this weekend while I was working. The attorneys who usually come over for lunch were unusually tight-lipped and not as happy-go-lucky as normal. For whatever that is worth.

Side note. They are also horrible tippers dispite being the largest lobbying firm, and one of the largest law firms in DC. Even when using their firm paid credit cards.

[Shakespeare]

40. That is not an insignificant observation.

I used to work in the legal field in DC, and I find your anecdote most interesting. I also used to be a reporter, which probably explains why I find it so interesting.

While I understand those who tut-tut the speculation on this legal case (and others), it would be a hideous dereliction of duty for any journalist assigned to this story not to be collecting as many circumstantial details as possible and reporting on the likely sum of those details. Investigative journalism is not unlike algebra, in that certain knowns and unknowns have to be carefully calculated to a likely answer. Does any reporter have concrete conclusive proof of what's going to happen? Of course not, and it's a bit of a red herring to chide them for that; they're making the most educated speculation they can under the circmstances, and that's their job.

To date, I think Schuster hands-down has done the best job of following (and speculating on) this case.

[youngred]

it might (and probably is nothing)

a firm like PB has soooo many balls in the air that it could well be anything. But it was an unusual amount of activity, even for them, and esp on a weekend. I agree, little bits here and there can add up to a much larger solution to the puzzle.

[Misskittycat]

42. I think this is a very interesting observation. n/t

[hlthe2b]

44. WOW, Youngred... I didn't know you had a front row seat...

so-to-speak... Cool. Have you worked their long?

Keep the observations coming!

[Spazito]

45. Interesting, thanks for posting your observation

It certainly adds credence to what Jason reported.

[Seabiscuit]

41. I, for one, will quit reading such "scoops" - Leopold's article is full of

logical inconsistencies, and I fear he wrote it hastily based on less than reliable sources, with little to no editing.

One thing *our* journalists have to do is drop their obsession with being the first to "scoop" a story.

That's *never* as important as getting the story right before it goes to print.

I'll believe that Rove is being indicted when I hear the words from Fitzgerald's mouth, and no one else's. Why can't the rest of the media wait for that to happen?