Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Yes, absolutely.
May 13, 2006 5:39 PM   Subscribe

Apparently, Karl Rove has been indicted.
posted by thirteenkiller (168 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
If true, RIBBIT!
posted by trondant at 5:44 PM on May 13, 2006


And I guess this one's a keeper?
posted by cgc373 at 5:44 PM on May 13, 2006


I'll be taking a wait-and-see approach on this. I won't believe it until I see the SmugSlug (as I call him) being frog-marched out of a building, and even then, Bush will probably pardon him no matter what happens at the trial.
posted by SaintCynr at 5:45 PM on May 13, 2006


This post was deleted for the following reason: rumorfilter: let's wait until it actually happens.
posted by Hat Maui at 5:46 PM on May 13, 2006


I'm not finding it anywhere other than truthout. This may just be wishful thinking. For the moment.
posted by mojohand at 5:46 PM on May 13, 2006


I wish I could draw an ascii penis.
posted by fire&wings at 5:48 PM on May 13, 2006


Yesterday's story was that the indictment was imminent; today's is that it's actually happened.
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:50 PM on May 13, 2006


Rehash from yesterday?
posted by bim at 5:50 PM on May 13, 2006


8====D
posted by jon_kill at 5:50 PM on May 13, 2006


Hmmm...speculation is increasing.

I'll pray that my dreams come true!
posted by bim at 5:55 PM on May 13, 2006


Surely this will be the thing that brings down the whole house of cards.
posted by keswick at 6:01 PM on May 13, 2006


What will Bush do without his Brains???
posted by melt away at 6:03 PM on May 13, 2006


What will Bush do without his Brains???

My guess: lots of tetherball.
posted by ed at 6:03 PM on May 13, 2006


speculation is increasing.

Yeah, but we're still at the point where the most reliable source on that page is rawstory.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:05 PM on May 13, 2006




I'll believe this when I see it someplace reputable. Then, I'll celebrate.
posted by JMOZ at 6:06 PM on May 13, 2006


WaPo doesn't have it, NYT doesn't have it, CNN doesn't have it.... thirteenkiller, the next time you want to jerk off, do it in private, OK?
posted by mojohand at 6:07 PM on May 13, 2006


If by "indicted" you mean "claimed to have been indicted by some random web page".
posted by delmoi at 6:09 PM on May 13, 2006


O SNAP!
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:10 PM on May 13, 2006


Yesterday's story was that the indictment was imminent; today's is that it's actually happened.

No, todays is that it's rumored to have actually happened.

Monday's story will be that it's actually happened.
posted by delmoi at 6:10 PM on May 13, 2006


OMG! It's on the internet!
posted by mr_roboto at 6:13 PM on May 13, 2006


certainly a case of premature erovification
posted by pyramid termite at 6:13 PM on May 13, 2006


It's kind of weird the level of detail in these truthout reports.

It's either total Million Little Pieces style fabrication or it's true, not seeing an option inbetween.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:17 PM on May 13, 2006


The story isn't that it's rumored to have actually happened, the story is that it has happened.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:18 PM on May 13, 2006


WaPo doesn't have it, NYT doesn't have it, CNN doesn't have it....

Bah! The Main Stream Media can't be trusted! Haven't you heard that on talk radio?
posted by Balisong at 6:21 PM on May 13, 2006


The story isn't that it's rumored to have actually happened, the story is that it has happened.

No, the story is that some random website with no credibility said that it happened, and no major news sources confirmed that it has happened.
posted by delmoi at 6:21 PM on May 13, 2006


don't you understand? unnamed administration officials are to be trusted and taken at face value when cited in the NY Times, but not on THE INTERNETS!!!
posted by rxrfrx at 6:22 PM on May 13, 2006


No, the story is that some random website with no credibility said that it happened, and no major news sources confirmed that it has happened.

Hey, you just made that up. That's YOUR story, delmoi.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:23 PM on May 13, 2006


Ha!
posted by ludwig_van at 6:28 PM on May 13, 2006



According to his Wikipedia entry, Leopold is a fairly regular contributor to mainstream newspapers like WSJ, The Chronicle, NPR, etc. He was also the bureau chief of the Dow Jones newswires. So no, not everything you read is true, but it just seems unlikely that this guy would risk his career on such a major story like this if the story hadn't been verified. Still, wait and see.

I like this quote from the unidentified White House aide:
"...eventually it will become old news quickly." Says it all, really.

posted by bukharin at 6:28 PM on May 13, 2006


Do truthout and raw story have a record for getting this kind of stuff right? I seem to remember a flurry of "scoops" from raw story last fall claiming that Hadley was singing to Fitzgerald, and we've since heard nothing to corroborate that. Off the cuff, this seems way too big for truth out to have an exclusive. If you were going to leak one of the biggest stories of the year, who would you call first?
posted by gsteff at 6:31 PM on May 13, 2006


I mean tk, did you actually read the article? The author claims to tell us what happened in a private meeting with Fitzgerald and Luskin (Rove's Lawyer);

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

That's not how it happens normally, the indictment gets filed with the court, (which then becomes a part of the public record) and then the indictment is sent to the other lawyer.

So we're supposed to believe that this "Jason Leopold" has access to better sources then anyone in the Washington establishment (like that works at the NYT or Post and has been getting info from Luskin all along?)

And even if it were true, it wouldn't make rove officially "indicted" until the indictment is filed with the court, IMO.

An author who's had his articles retracted by the NYT and Salon? (The link is to an 'alternative' news source that takes Leopold's side, but it does say his reputation is ruined. Well if his reputation is bad, should we really trust him here?)
posted by delmoi at 6:31 PM on May 13, 2006


Rove appears to have canceled his monday AEI speech. (Or AEI has for some reason decided to remove it from the listing of events).
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 6:32 PM on May 13, 2006


Hey, you just made that up. That's YOUR story, delmoi.

Wtf are you talking about? Are you saying that truthout is not a website? Or that it has some sort of credibility? If so, what is the evidence of its credibility? Nothing has credibility until it's shown credible, not the other way around.
posted by delmoi at 6:34 PM on May 13, 2006


hell yeah. frog march the bitch.!
posted by specialk420 at 6:34 PM on May 13, 2006


From the article I already linked:

On Oct. 1, citing an inability to independently verify the authenticity of the email, Salon took down the story. But this time, Salon went for Leopold’s throat, labeling Leopold’s attribution errors as plagiarism and saying he had betrayed journalistic trust. Leopold protested that his copying of the Financial Times was unintentional, and that his attribution elsewhere in the article to the FT showed that there was no intent to steal another writer’s work.

Asked how Salon could think Leopold was trying to pass off another writer’s work as his own when he drew attention to that same work with attribution elsewhere in the article, Salon managing editor Scott Rosenberg responded that Leopold’s intent was immaterial.

“I can tell you that a reader of the story as he originally wrote it would be aware that Leopold had attributed roughly two sentences to the Financial Times,” said Rosenberg. “What the reader would not know was that seven paragraphs, or nearly 500 words, had been lifted nearly verbatim from the Financial Times. By every definition I’m aware of, this does constitute plagiarism, whether conscious or unconscious, intentional or accidental.”



So he's also a plagerist, Great source, TK
posted by delmoi at 6:35 PM on May 13, 2006


Wow delmoi, you're really upset about this.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:35 PM on May 13, 2006




>>who would you call first?

I think leaking is more dependent on personal relationships between the journalist and his source -- having a Scotch at a Beltway bar with winks and whispers. The source may be a friend of Leopold's who admitted the information, knowing that Leopold would probably use it, maybe doing a favor to him as a friend to give him the scoop, knowing it could advance his career, thinking there's no real harm done, because the story will break soon anyway. TruthOut may be the quickest way for Leopold to break the story, and it can be easily fanned across the Internet.
posted by bukharin at 6:37 PM on May 13, 2006


If this is actually true, I'm going to add truthout to my daily reads.

If not, um, it's witch burnin' time.
posted by blacklite at 6:39 PM on May 13, 2006


I mean, I love you, thirteenkiller, but we haven't lit anything on fire in so long.
posted by blacklite at 6:39 PM on May 13, 2006




>>you're really upset about this.

Yeah, it always surprises me how vehement the reaction some people have in these comments, like their life depends on disproving something that will be settled in good time anyway.

Relax! Speculating is fun!
posted by bukharin at 6:40 PM on May 13, 2006


I don't believe anything until I read it on the Drudge Report! :>
posted by bim at 6:49 PM on May 13, 2006


The source may be a friend of Leopold's who admitted the information, knowing that Leopold would probably use it, maybe doing a favor to him as a friend to give him the scoop, knowing it could advance his career, thinking there's no real harm done, because the story will break soon anyway.

Sure, that could have happened. Or what could have happened is that Jason Leopold, a disgraced journalist just made shit up so that he could say something most people expect to happen in the next few days had already happened. And why not? He has no career to speak of other then writing for random websites.

Rove will probably be indicted on monday, and then no one will talk about it here because it would be a dupe if posted.
posted by delmoi at 6:49 PM on May 13, 2006


blink

----->DISGRACED<-----

/blink
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:53 PM on May 13, 2006



He has no career to speak of other then writing for random websites.

Uhm, kind of..


"Jason Leopold is the author of the forthcoming memoir News Junkie, due out in April 2006 on Process Media books. Leopold spent two years covering California’s electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. He has written more than 2,000 news stories on the issue and was the first journalist to report that energy companies were engaged in manipulative practices in California’s newly deregulated electricity market. Mr. Leopold has also reported extensively on Enron. He was the first journalist to interview former Enron President Jeffrey Skilling following Enron’s bankruptcy filing in December 2001.

Mr. Leopold has broken numerous stories on the financial machinations Enron engaged in and his investigative pieces on the company have been published in The Nation, Salon.com, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, CBS Marketwatch, Entrepreneur, Utne Reader and numerous other national and international publications. Mr. Leopold was also a regular contributor to CNBC and National Public Radio and has also been the keynote speaker at more than two-dozen energy industry conferences around the country. Mr. Leopold has been writing about foreign and domestic policy online for publications such as Alternet, CounterPunch, Common Dreams, ZNet, Z magazine, The Raw Story, and Truthout."
posted by bukharin at 6:55 PM on May 13, 2006


'Rove? I've never heard of the guy." -Bush
posted by Balisong at 6:57 PM on May 13, 2006


According to his Wikipedia entry, Leopold is a fairly regular contributor to mainstream newspapers like WSJ, The Chronicle, NPR, etc. He was also the bureau chief of the Dow Jones newswires.

Was that the Wikipedia entry that he cut-&-pasted from that of a more esteemed journalist?
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:57 PM on May 13, 2006


So what you're saying delmoi is that Leopold is probably right Rove will probably be indicted on monday yet this is still a bullshit post because...you don't like this guy or something?

A stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.
posted by Jimbob at 6:57 PM on May 13, 2006


Prosecutor in CIA leak case says Cheney wrote about exposed agent
posted by furtive at 6:58 PM on May 13, 2006



a more esteemed journalist?

Like, uh, Judith Miller?
posted by bukharin at 7:01 PM on May 13, 2006


Sweet! I hope it's true.
posted by mike3k at 7:04 PM on May 13, 2006


bukharin: most of that happened before the salon incident. Yes, I read the wikipedia article.

So what you're saying delmoi is that Leopold is probably right Rove will probably be indicted on Monday yet this is still a bullshit post because...you don't like this guy or something?

Leopold is saying that rove has already been indicted we already had a story saying that he will probably be indicted, so if that's all we're saying, then this is a dupe.

There is still a possibility that rove will not be indicted. We can't say for certain, but that is exactly what Leopold is doing.
posted by delmoi at 7:04 PM on May 13, 2006


Does it even matter to you people if the things you belive are actually true? Or do you just not care?
posted by delmoi at 7:09 PM on May 13, 2006



posted by lalochezia at 7:09 PM on May 13, 2006




Nonetheless, this is still a worthy FPP, because of the singularity of the scoop.

If it was 1998 and Matt Drudge was first announcing the Lewinsky affair, I'd want it on Metafilter. It's a historical event, if true. If not, a curious sidenote, especially considering the level of detail in the article.
posted by bukharin at 7:09 PM on May 13, 2006


This story is all about Leopold's credibility. Clearly.
posted by edverb at 7:09 PM on May 13, 2006


Spewing things with a "truthy" feel is much better than relying on facts and actual events. Look how long it's carried the president.
posted by Balisong at 7:10 PM on May 13, 2006


< !--begin clock-->

< !--end clock-->
posted by Effigy2000 at 7:11 PM on May 13, 2006


Bah. That looked fine on Live Preview. Oh well.
posted by Effigy2000 at 7:12 PM on May 13, 2006


Does it even matter to you people if the things you belive are actually true? Or do you just not care?

Most ironic comment ever, for those of you keeping score at home. At this rate, Chad, all your circle-jerk compatriots will be be behind bars, which pretty much confirms my suspicion that your posts are the very epitome of (political) masturbation.
posted by joe lisboa at 7:12 PM on May 13, 2006


A Fresh Focus on Cheney:
Cheney's notes, written on the margins of a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed column by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, were included as part of a filing Friday night by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the perjury and obstruction case against ex-Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The notes, Fitzgerald said in his filing, show that Cheney and Libby were "acutely focused" on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House's handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence. In the column, which created a firestorm after its publication, Wilson wrote that he had been dispatched by the CIA without pay to Niger in February, 2002 to investigate an intelligence report that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African country for a nuclear bomb. Wilson said he was told Cheney had asked about the intelligence,but the White House subsequently ignored his findings debunking the Niger claims.
A link to the actual Fitzgerald Filing.
posted by furtive at 7:13 PM on May 13, 2006


Nonetheless, this is still a worthy FPP, because of the singularity of the scoop.

Well, the difference of course is that with the Lewinsky story, no one knew about it, whereas with this story, everyone is sort of expecting it to happen, and this guy is saying "Oh, it has happened."

Certainly, I want to see Rove indicted, but I'd rather wait for it to actually happen, and be confirmed to have happened before thinking that it has.
posted by delmoi at 7:14 PM on May 13, 2006


Here's something confirmed: PDF of Cheney's annotated copy of Wilson's article.
posted by edverb at 7:20 PM on May 13, 2006


Gotta side with delmoi on this.

Ladies and gents, the Chicago White Sox have won the 2006 World Series. Now hail me as your psychic emperor.
posted by pokermonk at 7:27 PM on May 13, 2006


You never know, maybe Rove will cut a last minute deal to go to therepy for 18 months, pay $30,000 to offset the investigative costs, and agree not to break any laws for the next year-and-a-half (that's the hard one), and he'll be let off.
posted by Balisong at 7:27 PM on May 13, 2006


"maybe Rove will cut a last minute deal to go to therepy for 18 months, pay $30,000 to offset the investigative costs, and agree not to break any laws for the next year-and-a-half"

Yeah, and maybe Courtney Love will blow his brains out.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:32 PM on May 13, 2006


You never know, maybe Rove will cut a last minute deal to go to therepy for 18 months, pay $30,000 to offset the investigative costs, and agree not to break any laws for the next year-and-a-half (that's the hard one), and he'll be let off.

Eh, I don't know about that but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Bush just pardoned him. On the other hand, Rove may roll over on Cheney, which would be totally awesome.
posted by delmoi at 7:33 PM on May 13, 2006


Do truthout and raw story have a record for getting this kind of stuff right?

I still take them both with a grain of salt, but MSNBC backed up Raw Story's claim about Plame and Iran recently.
posted by homunculus at 7:35 PM on May 13, 2006


I'll believe it when I see it on the BBC News website.
posted by kaemaril at 7:39 PM on May 13, 2006


Yeah, and maybe Courtney Love will blow his brains out.

POST OF THE YEAR LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

SHUT THIS THREAD DOWN NOW ITS ALL DOWNHILL FROM HERE
posted by Jairus at 7:41 PM on May 13, 2006


I thought it was interesitng, on that google news link from above, This Article from Editor and Publisher, the GNews page says... My friend and former colleague Karl Rove will soon be indicted, and the question for journalists, citizens and those who care about him and/or the country is ...

but when you click on the link it opens as...

My friend and former colleague Karl Rove may soon be indicted, and the question for journalists, citizens and those who care about him and/or the country is why we're in this mess in the first place.

Did someone know something and then alter the story as to not leak the news? It seems odd...
posted by SirOmega at 7:46 PM on May 13, 2006


To play devil's advocate... the real journalists won't run a story unless it's sufficiently well-sourced (in theory). A story with a single anonymous source isn't ipso facto untrue, just unreportable. That's Drudge's whole M.O., in fact.
posted by smackfu at 7:51 PM on May 13, 2006


"...eventually it will become old news quickly." Says it all, really.
posted by bukharin


I hope that would not be true were Mr. Rove indicted. Still, it seems to be the cash price of gas at the pump, not the drops of blood in each gallon, that drives polls. Or, perhaps y'all meant something like, in light of new revelations...

I've found both truthout and raw story to be right on the money, at times, and just wishful babble other times...best to wait for a more reliable source...
posted by taosbat at 7:52 PM on May 13, 2006


America is waiting for a message of some sort or another.
Takin' it again. Again! Again! Takin' it again.
Well now... no, no... now, we ought to be mad at the government not mad at the people.
Takin' it again. Again! Again! Takin' it again.
I mean, yeah, well... wha-what're ya gonna do?
America is waiting for a message of some sort or another.
No will whatsoever. No will whatsoever! Absolutely no honor.
No will whatsoever. No will whatsoever! Absolutely no integrity.
No will whatsoever. No will whatsoever! I haven't seen any any any citizen over there stand up and say "Hey, just a second."
No will whatsoever. No will whatsoever! I mean, yeah, so... wha-what're ya gonna do?
America is waiting for a message of some sort or another.
posted by davebush at 7:53 PM on May 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


Another reason to be skeptical of this is that there was a ton of leaks before Libby's indictment. The newspapers had confirmed that perjury and obstruction charges would be brought against Libby at least two days before Fitzgerald's press conference, if I recall correctly. While its concievable that those leaks came from Rove's lawyer, Luskin, in an effort to make Rove look good, and Luskin now has no such incentive, its hard to imagine that the veritable flood of stories that preceeded that announcement would shrink to basically zero before this one.

I'll believe it when I see it on the BBC News website.

I'll believe it when I see it on Oprah.
posted by gsteff at 7:53 PM on May 13, 2006


Wasn't there a Ben Elton novel that featured a restaurant specialising in rare and endangered species?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:08 PM on May 13, 2006 [2 favorites]


argh wrong thread. sorry folks.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:08 PM on May 13, 2006


The part of the story that makes no sense is that "Fitzgerald . . . met with [Rove attorney] Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove". What does that mean, "to go over the charges"? Surely it doesn't mean "to explain them" -- it's safe to assume Rove's attorney knows how to read an idictment. "To explore possible defense strategies" maybe? Heh. And obviously, Fitzgerald doesn't need the target's permission to bring an indictment, so really, what's to go over?

Delmoi is exactly right -- this isn't how indictments work.

Assuming for the sake of argument that looooong meeting took place, the only possible explanation is a last minute plea deal.

I just don't want to get my hopes up is all . . .
posted by Toecutter at 8:09 PM on May 13, 2006




Nice, davebush. Nice.
posted by bukharin at 8:18 PM on May 13, 2006


America is waiting for a message of some sort or another.
posted by davebush


Do you think it would do the job if the elections this year were to succesfully replace the Republican majority in at least the lower house? Do you think it would do the job if this year's elections turn out to be untrustable, again?
posted by taosbat at 8:27 PM on May 13, 2006


99% of the internet is a high-pressure bullshit hose. Will it really hurt you THAT much to go out and have some fun on a Saturday night, and see what happens tomorrow?
posted by slatternus at 8:32 PM on May 13, 2006


I'll believe it when I see it on the BBC News website.

Prince William refused cheese toastie, forced to eat fish and chips instead
posted by cillit bang at 8:33 PM on May 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


Oh. You. Kid.
posted by taosbat at 8:35 PM on May 13, 2006


The guy is a self-admitted liar, former thief and coke addict, who has battled with mental illness for years, and who also happens to have a book coming out this month. Hopefully, for his sake, it won't be pulled right before publication like his last one...
posted by SweetJesus at 8:38 PM on May 13, 2006


Geez, what kind of immature kiddie opens his Fitzmas presents two days early?
posted by wendell at 8:44 PM on May 13, 2006



Will it really hurt you THAT much to go out and have some fun on a Saturday night, and see what happens tomorrow?


This is fun! And I assume you're posting this comment from your blackberry at the club?
posted by bukharin at 8:49 PM on May 13, 2006


Not even newsfilter, rumorfilter.
posted by LarryC at 8:55 PM on May 13, 2006


dailykos had this story on 5 july 2005.
posted by bukvich at 9:25 PM on May 13, 2006


davebush's comment

"America is Waiting"
from the album "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts"
by Brian Eno and David Byrne

posted by jaronson at 10:15 PM on May 13, 2006


Seriously, if this doesn't come out everywhere on Monday morning and this turns out to be a stupid rumor, truthout and rawstory links are going to be banned from mefi.
posted by mathowie at 10:35 PM on May 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


I can't seem to make it through Sundays . . . tick tock tick tock.

Pardon him all he wants, this will be the PR body blow that takes Bush into the low 20s, a democratic house, and impeachment.

Damn, now I know how all those republican jackals felt when they heard about the thing with the intern. Only this is the death of a thousand cuts. Clinton got hit with a blunt instrument and was able to regain his footing. Bush, no way he recovers anything now even if he goes back to war with flags a-fluttering. This administration is sunk, which makes it very, very dangerous. Hold on to your hats.

It's Fitzmas Time in the City.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:37 PM on May 13, 2006


The guy is MetaFilter: a self-admitted liar, former thief and coke addict, who has battled with mental illness for years, and who also happens to have a book coming out this month.
posted by exlotuseater at 10:42 PM on May 13, 2006 [1 favorite]


if this doesn't come out everywhere on Monday morning and this turns out to be a stupid rumor, truthout and rawstory links are going to be banned from mefi.

Man, now I don't know what to root for.
posted by furiousthought at 10:46 PM on May 13, 2006


Pardon him all he wants, this will be the PR body blow that takes Bush into the low 20s, a democratic house, and impeachment.

Low 20s, a dem house, but not impeachment, as long as pelosi is in charge.
posted by delmoi at 10:48 PM on May 13, 2006


Seriously, if this doesn't come out everywhere on Monday morning and this turns out to be a stupid rumor, truthout and rawstory links are going to be banned from mefi.
posted by mathowie


Truthout I can understand, but why Rawstory? I don't see it on their website.
posted by homunculus at 10:48 PM on May 13, 2006


Man, now I don't know what to root for.

Well, tell you what. If the papers come out monday saying "Karl Rove was indicted, monday may 15th Rawstory and truthout will officially be wrong, for saying that he was indicted at any minute before that.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 PM on May 13, 2006


Well, truthout at least.
posted by delmoi at 11:07 PM on May 13, 2006


Now we see how Meta is Filtered!
posted by Operation Afterglow at 11:10 PM on May 13, 2006


OOh!! Can we ban Fox News links, too?
They're full of "Truthiness" links and commentary, irreguardless to facts, too.
posted by Balisong at 11:33 PM on May 13, 2006



Let's just ban links.
posted by bukharin at 11:34 PM on May 13, 2006


The president has a big prime-time speech about illegal immigration on Monday. It's a slow news weekend, so the media is on 24/7 speculation about what he'll say. If Bush knew Rove was being indicted on Monday, the speech would be bumped and we'd all know why.

If this were more than a rumor, it'd be the biggest story in the news right now, and the only person covering it wouldn't be some random cokehead named Jason Leopold on TruthOut.org.
posted by b_thinky at 11:56 PM on May 13, 2006


Well, it was nice to believe, at least for a second, wasn't it?
posted by saysthis at 12:14 AM on May 14, 2006


Let's just ban links.

Sounds like a plan!
posted by furiousthought at 12:51 AM on May 14, 2006


As Judy Miller says, "we were all wrong. If your sources are wrong, you are wrong."
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 1:12 AM on May 14, 2006


I have for sometime found it amusing that Rove is so often called The Brain when from what we see theBush approval rating has been going down consistently. What sort of brain is behind this steep decline in the popularity of our president? Or is there perhaps a realstrategy I am missing?
posted by Postroad at 1:31 AM on May 14, 2006


one second, there, señor haughey. why is this wholly speculative post tacitly acceptable but the other unverifiable, unisourced article from the same author in the same publication a day earlier was not? i know consistency is sometimes difficult to maintain but the craptacular nature of this post seems pretty clear-cut.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:34 AM on May 14, 2006


I may as well recycle my comment from the deleted thread:

It doesn't matter who gets indicted when for what: Bush will just pardon them all before he leaves and they'll retreat to some enclave and light cigars with thousand-dollar bills while what's left of our country goes down in flames.

The only way to get around this would be to have congress revoke the presidential pardon power. Then we'd see some brown pants for real. Otherwise, it's just more dogs and ponies. *yawn*
posted by Aquaman at 1:50 AM on May 14, 2006


its beginning to feel a lot like 1974.
posted by Fupped Duck at 2:18 AM on May 14, 2006


The guy is a self-admitted liar, former thief and coke addict,

We're not talking about the President, here.


Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all night.
posted by melt away at 3:45 AM on May 14, 2006


I have for sometime found it amusing that Rove is so often called The Brain when from what we see theBush approval rating has been going down consistently. What sort of brain is behind this steep decline in the popularity of our president? Or is there perhaps a realstrategy I am missing?
posted by Postroad at 1:31 AM PST on May 14 [+fave] [!]


I think the strategy is to only play offense during campaign season.

Approval ratings have dipped because the conservative base is eroding. It won't be hard to bring them back. The tax cut extension passed and he will send troops to the Mexican border. Those two actions alone will probably be good for somewhat of an approval boost. If Dems fight hard on either issue - and probably even the NSA programs - Bush will gain popularity. Democrats need to stick to Iraq and gas prices if they want to win.

Given the polarity of the past several election cycles, Bush has an absolute cieling of 50% approval. He won 51% of the popular vote on a 47% approval rating. In lower turnout mid-terms, even approval in the 20s is no guarantee for Democrats.

I think Dems are getting too giddy and reading too much into these poll numbers. Democrats have won ONE battle in 6 years against Bush (on social security, and he may even bring that back in his final 2 years). The biggest thorn in this administration's side has been all the leaks, not anything Democrats have done.
posted by b_thinky at 3:47 AM on May 14, 2006


Dammit, melt away, that's what I was thinking, too. I had this all planned:

The guy is a self-admitted liar, former thief and coke addict, who has battled with mental illness for years, and who also happens to have a book coming out this month.

Bush has a book coming out?

"At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."-Joseph Wilson, August 21, 2003

I've got my fingers crossed, Joe.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 5:26 AM on May 14, 2006


Rove will probably be indicted on monday, and then no one will talk about it here because it would be a dupe if posted.
posted by delmoi at 6:49 PM PST on May 13


Tell ya what, I'll post it just so you can comment.

Because right now, it is only a report of what MAY happen in a couple of days. And one can't get enough of the 'this will bring down the administration' posts.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:13 AM on May 14, 2006


Prince William refused cheese toastie, forced to eat fish and chips instead

cillit bang, I think that should be a front-page post. It shouldn't be wasted down here in the comments.
posted by languagehat at 6:44 AM on May 14, 2006


i_am_joe's_spleen - Don't apologise, that was one of the best non sequiturs I've ever seen.
posted by apodo at 7:33 AM on May 14, 2006


And it was Stark that had that restaurant.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:47 AM on May 14, 2006


I'm sharpening my pike, just in case.
posted by drezdn at 9:23 AM on May 14, 2006


Low 20s, a dem house, but not impeachment, as long as pelosi is in charge.

It's time for the democrats to start treating Pelosi as a liability. Right now, the republicans' strongest strategy for the midterms is going to be "Do you really want Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House?"
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:39 AM on May 14, 2006


The guy is a self-admitted liar, former thief and coke addict,

We're not talking about the President, here.


Since when has the president admitted he was a liar, a thief and a coke addict? Did I miss that press conference?
posted by SweetJesus at 11:59 AM on May 14, 2006


It's time for the democrats to start treating Pelosi as a liability.

Yes. I've been thinking the same thing. Both Pelosi and Harry Reid are liabilities, IMHO. So is Howard Dean. It's the trifecta of losers.
posted by bim at 12:02 PM on May 14, 2006


Are you daring me languagehat?
posted by cillit bang at 1:09 PM on May 14, 2006


May 12:


May 13:



I don't know what tomorrow will bring, but "We'll stay with this story all night [Bangs desk] if we have to!"
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:58 PM on May 14, 2006


Are you daring me languagehat?

Well, I don't want to get you in trouble. People tend to be hard on a "single-link news story," so you might want to add a couple of supporting links. You know, "cheese toasties through history," "Parliamentary investigations of fish and chips," that kind of thing. But no Wikipedia links or commenters will make nasty remarks.
posted by languagehat at 2:57 PM on May 14, 2006


Second that. Maybe pub hours by region as well as dos and don'ts.
posted by xod at 5:24 PM on May 14, 2006


Are cheese toasties like grilled cheese sandwiches?
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:10 PM on May 14, 2006


Byron York: Corallo Denies Leopold's Rove Article
posted by homunculus at 11:09 PM on May 14, 2006


from homunculus' link:

Jason said today on Pacifica Radio will disclose his sources if his report turns out to be false. He is expecting the announcement on Rove to be Tuesday or Wednesday.

So even if this story is wrong, god forbid, it might still have an interesting outcome if Leopold sticks to his guns. Should be an interesting week.
posted by maryh at 12:29 AM on May 15, 2006


Are cheese toasties like grilled cheese sandwiches?

that would be better in askme.
posted by quonsar at 4:21 AM on May 15, 2006


Appearently, Jason Leopold has been duped.
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:17 AM on May 15, 2006


Again, we do not know at this point whether Leopold’s story is accurate or not and it if is not, we do not know why but I want to point out that if it turns out to not be accurate, there are a lot of possibilities. Rushing to a negative judgment of Jason is unfair until all the facts come out.

Jason Leopold clarified on a radio interview that the indictment would not be made public until at least Tuesday, or even later in the week.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 10:29 AM on May 15, 2006


Close, but no cigar.
posted by b1tr0t at 11:20 AM on May 15, 2006


so is it time to delete this thread yet?
posted by terrapin at 11:27 AM on May 15, 2006


Karl Rove Indicted, Everyone With a Blog to Get Their Own Unicorn
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:38 AM on May 15, 2006


If this story turns out to be true (and I think it will, not least of which because former CIA analyst Larry Johnson said he heard it from sources independent of Leopold), then this will go down as one of the greatest rebuttals to a "supposed" event ever! My favorite part:

3. There was no meeting or communication between Luskin and Fitzgerald on Friday. Bob [Luskin] was not in the office on Friday at all. He was home, taking care of a sick cat.

What a great excuse. It's believable and unbelievable at the same time, and what, are you going to ask the cat if this is true? Genius! Reminds me of my friend who always used to tell people he didn't want to talk to on the phone that he couldn't talk because he was trying on a suit - it was such a strange excuse that you just accepted it unquestioningly. That man is a great, no, fantastic liar.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:54 AM on May 15, 2006


The New Republic's Byron York called "Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo," who denied the TruthOut story. TalkLeft talked to Jason Leopold about Corallo's denial (and also called Robert Luskin, but it was past his bedtime). Then Corallo called TalkLeft.

Apparently, Leopold said in the interview that he'll burn his sources if they lied to him.

This "24 business hours" doesn't make any sense to me. Is that the same as three business days? And wouldn't you just say "three business days" if that's what you meant?
posted by kirkaracha at 12:11 PM on May 15, 2006


I want this to be true, but the story is starting to remind me of Doomsday cults and their shifting end of the world deadlines:

"The world ends Monday at noon!"
-Monday noon passes.
"Monday noon at the international dateline, so Tuesday at 8 for us!"
-Tueday passes.
"Tuesday at 8, taking into account the week that was removed from the calendar back in the 18th century!"
-Next Tuesday at 8 passes.
"And the last 30 leap years!"
-Another month passes.
etc.

Very interesting that he's promised to reveal the source if it turns out to be a lie. How was this worded exactly? Any wiggle room?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:20 PM on May 15, 2006


3. There was no meeting or communication between Luskin and Fitzgerald on Friday. Bob [Luskin] was not in the office on Friday at all. He was home, taking care of a sick cat.

Crap, now I like him! But if it turned out he is lying, what kind of sick mo-fo would lie about that???

It's the fact that it's Mark Corallo, Rove's PR person, who is denying the story that keeps me wondering. Wasn't it Luskin who leaked all over Libby's indictment, and Rove's situation, up until a week ago?

Anyway, Jason Leopold stated on the radio interview that he would out his sources if it turns out they have misled him.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 12:21 PM on May 15, 2006


Luskin continued to chastise me for calling so late on a Saturday night, saying "This is Washington, you don't call people at 10:00 on a Saturday night." I apologized again and said I was in Denver and it was two hours earlier and it hadn't occurred to me that it would be too late to call Washington. He said "Well it should have occurred to you." I asked if I could call him tomorrow. He said "No" and hung up.

The phone call probably woke his sick kitty :(
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 12:31 PM on May 15, 2006


It's probably sick because Luskin has been doing horrible things to it.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:35 PM on May 15, 2006


If this story turns out to be true

It can't. The story said Rove was already indicted. If he is indicted in the future, it doesn't make it any less false.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:46 PM on May 15, 2006


It can't. The story said Rove was already indicted. If he is indicted in the future, it doesn't make it any less false.

So if he get's indicted on Wednesday, you wouldn't give Lepold any credit for being correct in general, but wrong on a specific point? You're splitting hairs.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:37 PM on May 15, 2006


Apparently, Karl Rove was not indicted.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:03 PM on May 15, 2006


So if he get's indicted on Wednesday, you wouldn't give Lepold any credit for being correct in general, but wrong on a specific point? You're splitting hairs.

Leopold told a fantastic story about Fitz handing the indictment to Luntz and Rove at a meeting. "right in general" will still make him liar.
posted by delmoi at 2:06 PM on May 15, 2006


Lots of people are predicting an indictment. This story said it had happened and described in great detail how it went down. So no, I would give him zero credit.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:09 PM on May 15, 2006


Rove is in the news today. But there's no mention or even hint of an indictment. It sure looks like business as usual.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 2:22 PM on May 15, 2006


"A relaxed-looking Rove – not indicted, not out on bail, and wearing a business suit, not orange prison garb -- was in person at the right-wing think tank, American Enterprise Institute Monday morning." - NBC
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:54 PM on May 15, 2006


He can compromise and wear an orange business suit.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 3:01 PM on May 15, 2006


Leopold told a fantastic story about Fitz handing the indictment to Luntz and Rove at a meeting. "right in general" will still make him liar.

Please... Leopold, at the worst, got burned by his sources. If he's wrong and he doesn't out his sources on Friday, I'll agree with you. Otherwise, no one is infallible, and no one is immune from being lied to. It's all in how Leopold handles the fallout.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:05 PM on May 15, 2006


I mean, you have to figure that the former LA bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswire isn't going to hang what's left of his creditability on this Rove story, especially after the Salon debacle, if it was so easily proven wrong. He's been mostly right, ahead of NBC et all, through out the Plame case. I don't see why someone would commit career suicide, live on the internet for all to see, with out a damn good reason...
posted by SweetJesus at 3:09 PM on May 15, 2006


I don't see why someone would commit career suicide, live on the internet for all to see, with out a damn good reason...

Could have been a high risk gamble to regain his full credibility.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:16 PM on May 15, 2006




It could have been a calculated leak designed to discredit Leopold forever, knowing the ferocity with which he's pursued Enron and other scandals.
posted by bukharin at 4:10 PM on May 15, 2006



The Salon story controversy suggests that a similar thing occurred. Leopold was getting really deep into that thing, and it's not implausible that they would want to stop him.
posted by bukharin at 4:12 PM on May 15, 2006


I say we temporarily crucify him.

Just until his predictions come true.
posted by Balisong at 6:16 PM on May 15, 2006


The Detroit Free Press has coverage of the rumor and Democratic reaction to it, and makes pretty clear that there was nothing to it.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:56 PM on May 15, 2006


If Dems fight hard on either issue - and probably even the NSA programs - Bush will gain popularity. Democrats need to stick to Iraq and gas prices if they want to win.

If the Dems don't fight the NSA programs, nobody will. And if nobody will, then we all lose. No matter who wins.
posted by namespan at 9:15 PM on May 15, 2006


I think that the Democrats will let NSA programs slide because they would love the same power. (And think they will get it.)

This is a case where both parties as "parties", have a vested interest in keeping up with each other.
A basic conflict of interest.
posted by Balisong at 9:31 PM on May 15, 2006



I think that the Democrats will let NSA programs slide because they would love the same power. (And think they will get it.)

Well, I don't know. It's a curious reaction on the part of Specter & Co. in the Judiciary Committee. I've watched the proceedings on C-SPAN a few times in the last several months since revelations of this sort have started to come out. With the notable exceptions of ass licker John Cornyn (R-TX), and the infallibly mediocre mutterings of Diane Feinstein (D-CA, that whore), there seemed to be real concern among the congressmen about this program. Whether or not it's a principled outrage is to be debated, but the word "power" and the phrase "separation of powers" kept coming up, especially from Specter, so that one gets the sense that the real concern here is not so much the privacy of average Americans as the fear among power-sharers in Congress that the legislative branch is being completely sidelined, derailed, fashioned into a rubber-stamp, Reichstag'd if you will. Bush does, after all, seem to fancy a dictatorship. So there's the separation of powers concern.

I also wonder if congressmen expect to be themselves wiretapped as a matter of course, or if the revelation that Bush was circumventing the FISA court for no apparent reason made them fear for their own privacy. Who among them has nothing to hide? The Bush administration is not above political blackmail of the Hoover variety.
posted by bukharin at 9:41 PM on May 15, 2006


All the President's Men:
Once when I was reporting, Lyndon Johnson's top guy gave me the word they were looking for a successor to J. Edgar Hoover. I wrote it and the day it appeared Johnson called a press conference and appointed Hoover head of the FBI for life... And when he was done, he turned to his top guy and the President said, "Call Ben Bradlee and tell him fuck you."
posted by kirkaracha at 11:04 AM on May 16, 2006


A nice recap
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 4:20 PM on May 16, 2006


real nice recap. thanks for that link.
posted by puddles at 4:57 PM on May 16, 2006


Jason Leopold: Still Confident About Rove Indictment Article
posted by homunculus at 11:24 AM on May 17, 2006


Jason said he believed by Saturday night [presumably this coming Saturday night, the 20th], his article would break in the Washington Post, New York Times and other papers.

And there goes the "24 business hours."
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:41 AM on May 17, 2006


saturday 2007 i believe. pick one. any random saturday
posted by puddles at 2:19 PM on May 17, 2006


Wow, even Jeff Gannon is writing about this.

Internet "Journalists" Also Fabricate News

Jason Leopold got caught in an enormous fabrication last week when he wrote that White House advisor Karl Rove had been indicted. It is clear that the Hard Left and the Old Media want it to be true, even Hillary Clinton stood up and applauded the announcement, but wishing doesn't make it so. Nor does just making it up.

What's worse, Leopold claimed he had been set up as part of a White House "disinformation campaign." That's pathetic.

He'd have more credibility if he said he was following the examples set by The New York Times and CBS. They make stuff up too and call it news.


Tee hee.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 10:26 PM on May 19, 2006


Update from Marc Ash of Truthout:

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.

As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.

posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 10:51 PM on May 19, 2006


This half-assed apology isn't good enough. They reported that Karl Rove was indicted a week ago yesterday that it would be announced by yesterday by even the most charitable interpretation of their story. Jason Leopold said he'd burn his sources if they were lying, which it now seems like they were. He should expose them if he wants to retain any credibility; if he doesn't, Truthout should fire him.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:02 PM on May 20, 2006


"We are also changing our name to vaguerumorout.org."
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:14 PM on May 20, 2006


Truthout vs. Team Rove: Round Two
posted by homunculus at 11:58 PM on May 21, 2006


Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence.

Oh give me a fucking break.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:33 AM on May 22, 2006


Fuck them both - it's Monday a week later, and they still haven't outed their sources. I'll never trust anything I read there again.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:28 PM on May 22, 2006


« Older Behold: the self-contained circular kitchen....   |   She had been sitting in her ar... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments