Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Rove Indictment Rumor...

Reminicent of the titillation over an expected Fitzmas (that never came to fruition), the left'osphere has been abuzz over Truthout.org's proclamation that Rove had been indicted "Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators" (that was their 5/13 headline).

Not for lack of trying, no reporter has been able to corroborate this story or verify charges levied...

Now, Truthout.org has issued a "partial apology":

"The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it."

Um, what exactly does that mean? That the story was wrong? That they're not sure whether it was wrong? That it was right but published too soon?

Salon's Tim Grieve put that question to Ash, "and his answer seemed to be a pretty unequivocal no. Although Rove's lawyer and his spokesman have both said that Leopold's story was false, Ash said that Truthout still believes that Patrick Fitzgerald, Karl Rove and Rove lawyer Robert Luskin participated in a 15-hour plea-negotiation session at Patton Boggs last Friday; that Fitzgerald gave Rove's lawyers a copy of an indictment charging Rove with perjury and lying to investigators; and that Fitzgerald told Rove's lawyers that their client had 24 hours -- or 24 business hours -- to get his affairs in order."

Luskin, you may recall, said he was taking his cat to the vet that day.

"So why apologize for the story? Leopold's story quoted 'sources close to the case' who predicted an indictment announcement last week, and Ash told us that Truthout 'hoped and felt strongly' that Fitzgerald would announce Rove's indictment on Friday. That it didn't happen was a cause for concern, Ash said." (Read the entire story)

Why all the salivating over Rove? I never have quite understood that. It's already been established that Plame wasn't covert --so isn't all this irrelevant anyway?!

No comments: