The Missing Rove Indictment

If anyone's seen Karl Rove's missing indictment, please contact Truthout.org's writer Jason Leopold and Truthout editor Marc Ash ASAP because they've been reporting it as fact for over a week now. I can only imagine that this hasn't been a good week for Mssrs. Leopold and Ash. Here's Byron York's take on the 'missing' indictment:
It has now been more than a week since the website Truthout.org reported that top White House aide Karl Rove has been indicted in the CIA leak investigation. According to the scenario described by Truthout writer Jason Leopold, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent the better part of a day and night on Friday, May 12 with Rove and Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, at the Washington offices of Patton Boggs, where Luskin is a partner. In a radio interview last week, Leopold said, "there were plea negotiations going on that were ultimately rejected outright, [and] at the end of this marathon session Karl Rove was given an envelope which had the indictment in it and was told he had 24 hours to get his affairs in order." All that happened, by Leopold's reporting, in the early morning of Saturday, May 13. But now, more than 200 hours have passed since the 24-hour deadline which Leopold says Fitzgerald gave to Rove, and there has been no public notice of Rove's "indictment."
Seriously, this has to have been the 'week from hell" for Leopold and Ash. I'm not feeling sorry for them because they're the ones who reported and published the article, though. That's what might happen if you don't double- and triple-check your sources.
But how to explain the absence of an indictment? The indictment was, it turns out, a secret. "We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed," wrote Ash. "Rove may be turning state's evidence." Indeed, some other anti-Rove commentators have also suggested that the indictment was sealed. Wayne Madsen, another Internet writer who has claimed that Rove was indicted, wrote on Saturday that, "With a sealed indictment in hand, the special prosecutor could have been negotiating a plea agreement with the Rove camp during the last week."
My hunch is that the 'sealed indictment theory' is a way for Mssrs. Ash and Leopold to temporarily defend their article in hopes of it going away. The other possibility, as Captain Ed opines "Leopold could still be telling the truth, in that sources may have told him everything that he has claimed." Ed adds "However, as it appears at the moment, someone lied, and the one person with that kind of track record is Leopold. Kurtz makes a pretty good case that Leopold is not only untrustworthy but not particularly stable, either."

I suspect that Ed's right on the money as usual.



Posted Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:32 AM

No comments.

Popular posts from this blog

March 21-24, 2016

October 31, 2007

January 19-20, 2012