Karl Rove Non-Indictment – Time for Jason Leopold and William Rivers Pitt

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060613_karl_rove_non_indict.htm

June 13, 2006 at 12:14:00

Karl Rove Non-Indictment – Time for Jason Leopold and William Rivers Pitt to Pony up with Names and Specifics
by Steven Leser

http://www.opednews.com

According to John Solomon of the Associated Press, Patrick Fitzgerald did not indict Karl Rove and reports have surfaced that he will not be indicted despite reports to the contrary. Truthout as well as Jason Leopold who reported that the indictment had in fact happened on Friday May 12 http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml and his editor William Rivers Pitt now have a responsibility to take readers through the process that led them to report the incorrect information. Depending on the way sources provided information, particularly if it can be determined that sources intentionally misled Leopold, those sources should be named along with details of what information they provided. Sources that lie or otherwise intentionally provide disinformation to the media should not have assurances that they will remain anonymous. Naming them will alert other journalists to be wary of any information those sources might provide as well as a deterrent to others who might act similarly.

While Republicans and the Bush Administration might be tempted to celebrate today, such a celebration would be premature. The news is certainly good for Rove personally, but as this passage from Solomon’s AP article, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_rove shows:

“With Rove's fate now decided, other unfinished business in Fitzgerald's probe focuses on the source who provided Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward information about Plame.

Woodward says his source, who he has not publicly identified, provided the information about Wilson's wife, several weeks before Novak learned of Plame's identity. The Post reporter, who never wrote a story, was interviewed by Fitzgerald late last year.”

at least one person in the Bush administration has good reason to be nervous. There is much speculation about the identity of Woodward’s source. Some believe that the source is Vice President Dick Cheney. I believe it is another official in Cheney’s circle acting on unofficial orders from the Vice President to punish Valerie Plame and her husband for his NY Times article debunking administration claims on Iraq seeking to purchase uranium from Niger. I do not think Cheney would expose himself by calling Woodward directly. Regardless, the investigation is continuing and between the impending trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and the sword of Damocles hanging above the head of Woodward’s source, I think it likely that many bad days are still ahead for the Bush administration on Leak-Gate.

[LeftNYC]

1. Agreed that Truthout needs to pony up a better response

then our cards are on the table. Some sort of explanation is needed or more information.

[MallRat]

2. JOHN SOLOMON? You mean John "unhealthy obsession with Harry Reid" Solomon?

Who the hell broke this story first, the New York Times or Solomon? This is important, folks.

I don't trust John Solomon to be impartial, and neither should you.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=john+solomon

[MallRat]

19. WHO BROKE THIS STORY FIRST? NYT OR JOHN SOLOMON?

(eom)

[Pale Blue Dot]

20. What would be the motive for a lie?

I can see the point of the Reid falsehood - that charge is going to stick with a certain segment fo the morons out there. But if this is a lie, and Rove gets indicted next week, this will have accomplished NOTHING.

Solomon's an ass, but there is no possible motive for this lie, as far as I can see.

[Maven]

3. Don't QUESTION! Just "stand by" them.

(beats chest)

[grytpype]

4. Time for Leopold to take a hike...

... and join Doug Thompson and Wayne Marsden in the Hall of Assholes Who Make Things Up.

[stevenleser]

5. I'm not ready to go there yet, but...

... as I said, I want to hear what happened. Until then, I am willing to forgo any condemnation

[Pathwalker]

6. Isn't calling out DUers against the rules?

n/t?

[WI_DEM]

8. there are two ways of looking at this

it is one thing to call out a DUer on a thread that you disagree with, but in this case the DUer(s) are also public figures whose writing is published elsewhere and as such that writing can and should be debated like any other writing which is posted on DU.

[stevenleser]

27. What does it mean to 'call out' a DU'er....

... and are Leopold and Pitt considered DUers or members of the media at large?

[WI_DEM]

7. I've been thinking of this quite a bit and wonder if

wrong information was deliberately given to them to try and discredit a progressive publication.

[stevenleser]

24. Exactly what I thought a few weeks ago.

See---> http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060515_karl_rove_indictment.htm

[McCamy Taylor]

9. NYT & Judy Miller lied us into war and you wanna nail Pitt to a cross?

What exactly is your agenda?

Big difference between believing a mistaken or lying source and colluding with war criminals the way that Miller and the NYTs did, and yet you want to go after the small fry who do not have any power or desire to harm America.

Democratic Underground would be a lot more effective if people would thinbk about what they are doing and if they would channel their energy into meaningful action that is goal oriented.

[stevenleser]

10. I spoke with Pitt on the phone in Mid May after this whole thing started..

... I do not think he would feel that my article was the equivalent of "nailing him or Jason to crosses". I think I raise some fair questions and make some good suggestions about what they should do.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Thank you.

Apparently, TO is being held to a much higher standard than the NYT or WaPo. Gee, I wonder why? TO gets one news item wrong and the world is ending....

[stevenleser]

22. I do not understand this logic

#1 - I was not overly harsh at all. I've shown a friendly courtesy to William and Jason and believe me they completely get that as my previous one on one voice conversations with them have shown. I am not condemning them or nailing them to a cross. They would expect the same from me or OpEd News if we found ourselves in a similar situation.

#2 - I would expect the same from any press organization that was found to have imparted incorrect information. This is something that needs a detailed explanation. If you do a search on google on my name and Andrew Taylor, you will see what I write about journalists who in my opinion flagrantly and intentionally violate standards.

[mike_c]

11. agreed-- those "solid sources" burned TO and through them...

...they burned thousands of readers. I don't have much sympathy for their sensibilities at this point. Selling lies to journalists is little different from running a disinformation campaign, and the public has the right to know who is trustworthy and who isn't.

[NVMojo]

13. I agree, as a former small town journalist, I would have had to do this

if I reported a story like that ...

[stevenleser]

23. Of course, as would I or any other journalist...

... I'm not asking for anything ridiculous here. As I said to someone in private, there is a point at which 'fan' graduates to 'fanatic'.

[conflictgirl]

25. As a journalist, I agree

If I made a substantial error in an article, I would be required to issue a retraction. Otherwise, it would significantly impact my future credibility and ability to get work as a writer.

There is nothing unfair about asking people to follow journalistic conventions. Indeed, not requiring them to follow such standards only damages our side's credibility.

[Sammy Pepys]

14. Eh.....

For Leopold it's a double-edged sword. He's already ruined his reputation, but if he starts outing sources it will virtually guarantee no one will ever talk to him again.

I don't think Pitt has done nerely as much damage to his own reputation if he's done any at all. Plus, it's not his story.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

31. It's as much William Pitt's story as it is Jason Leopold's...

...WilliamPitt Wed Apr-26-06 04:10 PM

I am the lead writer and a senior editor for truthout
and as such, am centrally involved in the process of examining these stories. What happened before with Jason is widely known, but has no bearing upon current matters. Jason's sources for these Plame stories are as solid as concrete, and he has backed up each story threefold.

Again: we would not run his stuff if he was not credible, and we have been 100% hands-on in personally vetting each story and each source. Jason's work is above reproach on this matter.

From the DU thread Jason Leopold: Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury (full story)

[damntexdem]

15. Is there any verification of Rove's lawyer's claim?

I won't believe news reports based solely on what comes from Rove's camp.

[Snivi Yllom]

16. KnR

.

[OzarkDem]

17. Sorry, but I don't believe Rove's attorney

There are still a lot of facts that need to come out.

[stevenleser]

26. It really does not make any sense for him to lie

[OzarkDem]

35. Welcome to DU!

So what brings you here in the middle of this discussion?

[stevenleser]

37. Hi OzarkDem!

I've been here regularly for a few months and a lurker for years.

[bigtree]

18. well. now that we're taking administration sources' word as fact

I anxiously await other reports of letters of exoneration in other continuing investigations.

No more truthout sources, I'm casting my lot with the Rove camp now for my scoops.

[newspeak]

21. I'll wait and hear Fitzgerald confirm it

however, I'm not going to blame anyone for errors about indictments because I remember an author who apparently suicided himself (Fortunate Son) who was given information by, guess who--one KKKRove. This man is like a snake whispering into people's ear, and as they reveal his whisperings, he attempts to destroy them with his own utterances. I am not into beating on people, who have good intentions or smearing my fellow DUers. As they say, "Divide and Conquer."

[lynne]

36. More importantly - Fitzgerald HAS NOT DENIED it, either.

If this story was fraudulent, I have no doubt that Fitzgerald would have issued some sort of denial. The fact that no statement refuting the story has been issued by Fitzgerald or anyone else speaks volumes.

[stevenleser]

28. Kicked for the Tues Evening Crowd

[tom22]

29. Fitzgerald is never going to confirm it. Read what he said at his

press conference last fall. The story is over. Deal with it.

[stevenleser]

30. The Rove portion is over anyway, but reading the AP article, I am

convinced that the main target of the investigation is still at large and that Fitzgerald is feverishly working a case against them.

[Catherine Vincent]

32. You're having a lot of fun aren't you?

[cushla_machree]

33. so i missed most of the news

Was it Rove's lawyer that is reported that rove is in the clear?

Has this been confirmed? By Fitz?

I am confused here. TO better be a little more clearer here. I have been using them as a source for a long time, but if they gave us all the runaround, we need answers, otherwise i am less inclined to read it.

Is their source still sticking by the indictment? Meaning, is something here sealed for whatever reason till a future date?

Or, were they fed false information?

Or is this just a case of bad journalism? I am not familiar with leopold beyond this story...so either he jumped the gun lacking multiple sources or is lying here.

TO PLEASE CLEAR THIS UP.

I don't want to foresake them, the last thing i trust is rove's lawyer, this administration, or the MSM....but i need more help from TO here to understand this all.

[stevenleser]

34. You may have missed it initially but you caught up in a hurry...

... and I agree with you 100%. Leopold, Pitt and TO have to either make an incredibly strong case with sources, etc. to justify their continuing to stand by their story, or they need to admit they were wrong and take us through how they were misled, etc. again by citing sources and specifics.