Spin - Spin - Spin
Posted on 06/19/2006 10:32:32 PM PDT by Lorianne
What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors, which should be taken as an indication that we view this matter with the utmost seriousness.
For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment."
The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash.
On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report.
After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.
That leaves the most important question: If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?' That is a very troubling question, and the truth is, we do not yet have a definitive answer. We also continue to be very troubled that no one has seen the reported communication from Fitzgerald to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, and more importantly, how so much public judgment could be based on a communication that Luskin will not put on the table. Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what our sources say and what Luskin says Fitzgerald faxed to him, we need to be able to consider what was faxed - and in its entirety.
What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered - in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.
Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.
The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office.
Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be.
However, we call upon the Special Counsel to consider the right of the American people to know what has happened. Nothing, we believe, is more important to the survival of democracy than the light of justice, and nothing more damaging than the curtain of secrecy that today surrounds the highest office in the land.
Joe Lauria and The Washington Post's Attacks on Jason Leopold
We are well aware of the Lauria article and the series of attacks The Washington Post has launched against Jason Leopold and Truthout. As always, we will carefully consider all information and then publish a thoughtful response. In this case, we will publish our response on Wednesday, June 21, at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time.
They are one in the same!
Rove executed//http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2006/06/stromata_exclus.html (Best satire of Truth Out.
Since the passage of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, which first established both the lower federal courts and their jurisdiction, every federal indictment handed down has been styled, "United States vs. [Someone]." There is no reason for the name "United States" to be concealed, since if this case number refers to an indictment, the first words must always be "United States."
Q.E.D., this case number on which "TruthOut" now hangs its hat, is NOT an indictment of Karl Rove, or of anyone else. If this is a real reference at all, it may be a collateral motion to prevent certain information from being publicly released. It might be "Somebody vs. Fitzgerald," and the name "Fitzgerald" would reveal that it is a civil motion within a criminal investigation.
The second reason this is an obvious phony is that when any court has a legitimate reason for concealing the name of any party to any litigation, the practice is to substitute "Roe" or "Doe" as the name of the party. Apparently the 10-watt bulbs at "TruthOut" have never heard of "Roe v. Wade," or if they have, they haven't spent a nanosecond reflecting on why that case had that name.
The third reason that this is a phony is that any legitimate case number also includes the initials of the judge to whom the case has been randomly assigned, as soon as the case becomes real by having an initial pleading filed. There are no judicial initials on this case number. Again, there is no reason to conceal the name (initials) of the assigned judge, as that information reveals nothing about the parties to or contents of, the case.
The so-called "editors" at "TruthOut" are merely wallowing in their own ignorance, nothing more. And anyone who takes them seriously is wallowing in the intellectual mud with them.
I trust that covers the waterfront on this latest scam by "TruthOut."
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me
Congressman Billybob
It makes no sense. The only scenario that will fit the results is that Rove committed no crime regarding Palme or the investigative process.
To force this into the open the White House should discontinue all cooperation with Fitz in all matters. He would be forced to pop his indictments, if they exist, to proceed or fold tent and go home.
These clowns write like a bunch of college sophomores at a late-night bong session.
That is what you have been led to believe....
Before one can truly understand one must know of the Lizard People:
LIZARD PEOPLE NOT YET FOUND UNDERNEATH LOS ANGELES
There are 270 tunnels beneath Los Angeles, arranged in a network. Since they have, for the most part, been sealed up with fences, they are no longer used for street-crossings.
There are older tunnels, under Bel-Air estate, UCLA, and El Pueblo de Los Angeles State Historic Park not far from Olvera Street. The latter tunnel is alleged to have hid many during the 1871 massacre of Chinese, recounts Cecilia Rasmussen in her article "L.A. Scene: The City Then and Now" in the July 22, 1996 Los Angeles Times.
Hopi Indian legend reports a sub-surface maze existing almost 5,000 years ago. G. Warren Shufelt, a mining engineer, went in search of it during 1934. That year, using a dowsing rod he called a "radio X-ray," he claimed to have secretly discovered caves beneath downtown L.A.
He claimed to have consulted Little Chief Greenleaf, a Hopi leader, and was told about the Lizard People, who lived circa 3,000 B.C. Before the destruction of their culture by meteors or a fire, they were said to have created three underground cities around the Pacific Coast, including one under Los Angeles and another beneath Mt. Shasta.
The Lizard people reportedly made the caves housing thousands by using chemicals to melt bedrock. According to Shufelt's version of the Hopi legend, the city was in a lizard's shape, and extended from Dodger Stadium to the Central Library.
Whether the Lizard People were reptiles or humans, Shufelt did not clarify. (There is a post-Shufelt account of a humanoid "reptile" clad in both trousers and a shirt on Mt. Shasta in 1972.) Paul Apodaca, of Chapman University, said that Shufelt's account of Hopi history was "exaggerated and corrupted." (Hopis did have a social division called the lizard clan, however.)
The [L.A.] Times of January 29, 1934 reported Shufelt's claims of radio X-ray pictures of the subsurface rooms.
Shufelt said he thought he had found under Ft. Moore Hill a treasure room. With the permission of L.A. authorities, he had a 350-foot hole drilled. Cave-in worries stymied further drilling. After that, Shufelt vanished from public view.
Some five weeks prior to the drilling, Edith Elden Robinson had described her psychic vision of "a vast city...in mammoth tunnels extending to the seashore." The American Society of Psychical Research subsequently recounted her story of this supposed artifact of a vanished race.
On a website entry (http://www.lapl.org/central/urbanleg.html) dated March 29, 1996, Los Angeles' Central Library notes that, quite appropriate to the later library setting, the Lizard People owned golden tablets which delineated the story of the world since its beginning, the Lizard People's history, and even the origin of humanity.
Oh, puleeeze... Wrapping yourself in a flag that you despise is not going to convince anybody, and it will just tick off the other moonbats...
A liberal's idiocy is directly proportional to his/her ability to believe his/her own bullsh!t.
Mark Ash
You don't think it's...
Nah.
Couldn't be.
They greatly exaggerate their importance---that is a fact!!
....and now to Dan Rather and Jason Blair for the "Fake But Acurate Report", followed by "The Andy Rooney Senality Commentary"!
When they sign on, truth signs out. Could be their new slogan.
Translation: This is gonna get deep.
Thanks, Michael Moore doesn't have to land on me, I took the hint. I'm outta here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.