In the matter of Jason Leopold, there’s this from Joe Lauria in The Washington Post. In the matter of the Karl Rove non-indictment, there’s this from the editors of truthout. They’ll get to the matter of Jason Leopold tomorrow (at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time).
Postscript: June 21 — Here’s truthout’s promised follow-up about Leopold. (Not satisfactory, in my opinion.) But for truthout’s editors this is the heart of the matter.
Marc Ash, executive director of truthout, writes:
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.
Which makes eminent sense to me.
June 22: As to truthout’s “not satisfactory” posting about Leopold — subsequently updated, when others questioned it as well, to say that “Jason Leopold categorically denies identifying himself as Joe Lauria” — it’s still a problem. Sad to say, given Leopold’s past practices, his denial can’t be categorically trusted.
