reality-based educator

Interesting statement from Marc Ash at Truthout today. Truthout stands by Jason Leopold's indictment story and claims to have heard from mainstream reporters - off the record - who say they staked out Patton Boggs on Friday and knew of the meeting between Rove's side and prosecutors in the CIA leak case. Anyway, here's the statement:

For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

Here's what we now know: I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, "Rove is not a target," "Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted," and "Rove has not been indicted." Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold's account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.

We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.

We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.


We also learned the following: The events at the office building that houses the law firm of Patton Boggs were not in fact a very well-guarded secret. Despite denials by Corallo and Luskin, there was intense activity at the office building. In fact, the building was staked out by at least two major network news crews. Further, although Corallo and Luskin are not prepared to talk about what happened in the offices of Patton Boggs, others emerging from the building were, both on background and off-the-record. There were a lot of talkers, and they confirmed our accounts. We do have more information, but want additional confirmation before going public with it.

THE 24 HOUR THING

We reported that Patrick Fitzgerald had, "instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order...." That does not mean that at the end of that 24-hour period, Fitzgerald is obliged to hold a press conference and make an announcement. It just means that he has given Rove a 24-hour formal notification. Fitzgerald is not obliged to make an announcement at any point; he does so at his own discretion, and not if it compromises his case. So we're all stuck waiting here. Grab some coffee.

OK, the 24-hour notification makes a lot more sense to me than the attorneys telling Rove he "has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order." I remember from somewhere that Fitzgerald promised he'd give the White House notice before he was about to indict somebody. So perhaps that was the notice? And as Ash says, Fitzgerald is not under any obligation to hold a press conference to tell us that Rove's been indicted right after the 24 hour notification period ends. Who knows what is going on behind the scenes?

As to the mainstream reporters who shared off-the-record confirmation with Truthout about the Patton Boggs meeting, I guess that's what Leopold meant when he said that MSNBC, ABC News and Knight-Ridder all have one source confirming that Rove's side met with prosecutors on Friday. I don't know Knight-Ridder or ABC News reporters all that well, but could the MSNBC reporter be David Shuster? The CIA leak case has been one of his stories and I wouldn't be surprised to find out he knows of the meeting too. I wish he could go public with it, if indeed it's Shuster who has the info, but I can understand why he wouldn't. This is dicey stuff and you want to be sure before you go public or you could wind up drummed out of the news business like Dan rather.

So we still wait and we still wonder which side is telling the truth - Truthout or Rove's defense team. As Mike at Crest noted, Rove's attorneys and p.r. people are pretty slimy guys with a many reasons to lie. Yet I've also felt there was something funky about Leopold's story (especially the part about giving Rove "24 business hours" to get his affairs in order - that just seemed plain weird), but Truthout is sticking by Leopold, so I'm just going to assume that they must have some pretty good confirmation on the story.

And I'll wait until Friday to see what happens. Whew.