Jason Leopold responds: "Sources Confirm Rove is a Target"

[WilliamPitt]

Sources Confirm Rove is a Target
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t

Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 02:54:10 PM EST

On Monday, I had a conversation with several sources close to the CIA leak case who told me that Karl Rove would return to the grand jury Wednesday for the fifth time. Those sources told me that his appearance was the result of a target letter sent to his attorney Robert Luskin by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. The same sources said that Rove's status changed from being a "subject" of the probe to becoming a "target," meaning that Fitzgerald had enough evidence linking Rove to a crime and told that to Luskin. On Wednesday morning, when the news broke that Rove was going to testify for an unprecedented fifth time, I confirmed with sources close to the investigation that Rove did in fact receive a target letter. This was the case, they said. I then immediately called Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, for a comment about the target letter. Luskin didn't respond.

But upon leaving court Wednesday, after Rove testified for four hours, Luskin issued a statement saying that Rove was not a target of the probe. My sources maintain that Rove is a target and that Luskin understood that. I called Luskin again to get his statement. But he did not return the call. Rove's spokesman at the White House also weighed in, specifically denying my report that Rove received a target letter. This is the same White House that has refused to discuss this case for more than two years but decided on Wednesday to break its silence and respond to my story and deny that it's true. That seems odd.

Link: http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/4/26/155410/765

[tridim]

1. The goose is getting fat!

:popcorn:

[helderheid]

2. First recommend! Thank you so much Will!

[katty]

3. no comment at all? that speaks volumes

[helderheid]

4. Can you imagine Rove or his lawyer lying about this? NEVER!

LOL! :rofl:

[Marnieworld]

18. I know!

they are just a bunch of eagle scouts that bunch. :sarcasm:

[Maddy McCall]

5. Yep.

:thumbsup:

[bryant69]

6. it depends on what the meaning of the word Target means

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[helderheid]

10. the meaning of is

[BuyingThyme]

7. Okay Fourth Estate. Get on this thing. Do your magic. Yippeee!!

[Tiggeroshii]

8. So then...

If they are denying Rove received a target letter and he actually did, they must be pretty confident Rove can slip out of an indictment. Either that or they're simply betting all they have and crossing their fingers.

[Maddy McCall]

9. Or delaying the damage and hoping some other crisis will take center stage

[dweller]

11. some ... other ... crisis ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1033255


dp

[helderheid]

13. my stomach just dropped

[Maddy McCall]

16. Nah, something like Brittney having a miscarriage or....

Natalee Holloway's body being found.

You know, REAL news.

:D

[tridim]

17. That's definitely a "Storm the WH and throw out the tyrant" action.

[Sydnie]

22. Truer words were never spoken!

Time for the people to make their voice so loud that he can't ignore it any longer .. just like with Nixon. I still think there is the possibility of bloodshed in the streets in this country over the summer ... the ultimate "us against them" again.

[WiseButAngrySara]

36. Is this link working? Has it been removed by the mods? If so, why, and

what was the subject matter?

[Gabi Hayes]

45. yeah! wtf? double secret probation, or what?

too scary to be discussed, even?

[dweller]

46. was removed

was chatter about imminent attack on Iran

damn, wish i hadn't said that now.

buhbye.
dp

[emulatorloo]

19. or they are denying Rove received the letter because Luskin received it

I think we are hearing typical lawyerisms here.

[WiseButAngrySara]

30. Or because Rove is not yet a 'target' and won't be until Fitz makes his

decision, they're calling it a 'subject' letter, because Rove is still a 'subject' ???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????

[stop the bleeding]

31. yep I agree n/t

[ginnyinWI]

60. The latter

They want to keep the spin going as long as they can. A target letter means he's got a really slim chance of squeaking out of being indicted.
All of Karl's instincts tell him to keep the prez protected as long as he can--and this will do damage when it does come out.

It's going to be hard for the Fundies to keep supporting the prez when all around him are going under indictment. Oops there goes the base.

[capi888]

12. Thanks Will, I heard Jason on Ed Shultz show, last week!

He was great, informed, confident in his sources. He re-interated it many times concerning Rove. He also said, when asked by Ed, percentage wise how confident he was that Rove would be indicted. He said 95%. I almost drove off the road with glee. We have hope here, for truth to be exposed and those punished for distroying the WORLD....Thanks.

[robertpaulsen]

14. Recommended. Thank you WilliamPitt.

Thank you for printing Leopold's story and standing by him. I feel better now!

[understandinglife]

15. "This is the same White House that has refused to discuss this case for...

... more than two years but decided on Wednesday to break its silence and respond to my story and deny that it's true."

Well, I'd say that is about the strongest confirmation of the truth of the story I've read yet ;)

Recommended and please thank Jason for his dedication and diligence, Will.

And, ...


Never Forget: George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq.

[Marnieworld]

23. great signature

they're war criminals. Impeachment is just a start.

[proud patriot]

20. Right On

:-) good to hear

[kpete]

21. I am SO Glad For This info

Thank You

[WilliamPitt]

24. .

[helderheid]

25. any speculation on when/if he'll be indicted?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demobabe]

26. UK Guardian/AP: Luskin's response: not a target

"Rove's lawyer issued a statement saying Rove's appearance was scheduled at Fitzgerald's request. 'In connection with this appearance, the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation' and that no decision had been made concerning charges, Luskin said."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5782436,00.html

Luskin couldn't have said this if Rove received a target letter. We know Rove WILL be indicted. It's just a matter of when. But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Jason Leopold and Will Pitt: tell us the truth and not make crap up.

I need something better than "sources said" - I don't believe that. Prove it. Reveal your sources and PROOF.

Jason Leopold: we'd love to believe you, but unless you show concrete proof, we can't. Your past history of being fired or articles pulled for unconfirmed facts means you're going to have to give us more than "just trust me, guys - I talked to people who said..."

[driver8]

27. Squeal like a pig, KKKarl...squeal like a pig!!

I hope that they nail this piece of shit to the wall.

[Independent_Liberal]

28. You're talking my language there brother!

:)

[stop the bleeding]

29. seems odd??!?!?!? f*cking right it is odd --

I wrote this in another thread.

"Also I have been thinking about this side as well, if there was no letter then why even respond, I mean who is Jason Leopold in the grand scheme of things in DC and the MSM?

I personally like JL's reporting, but for people like Rove and Luskin to even respond about this speaks volumes to me.

just thinking...."

and then JL writes this

This is the same White House that has refused to discuss this case for more than two years but decided on Wednesday to break its silence and respond to my story and deny that it's true. That seems odd.

Very odd is right

[npincus]

58. BINGO

[npincus]

59. this explains why the WH threw Scotty overboard...

they knew they'd need a 'heavy hitter' to manage the blowback from this one

[stop the bleeding]

65. Also Snotty was tainted since he batted for both Libby(indicted) and Rove

(about to be indicted)

[npincus]

66. yes... removing him was pre-emptive

I wonder how many/who at the WH are in-the-know?

[stop the bleeding]

67. Darth Cheney, Shrub, WHIG - recently resigned Andy Card

and Rumsfeld and Rice

Oh yeah lets throw in Bolton for fun;)

[dogday]

68. True, he has made too many statements

to be standing in front of the press corp now...

[rodeodance]

32. Rove's grin was pretty wide coming out of the Court House.

[Zorra]

33. Remember smilin' Tom Delay? n/t

[helderheid]

43. yea, that was one of his better pictures!

[npincus]

61. not for long!

watch your back, Mr. Delay... tee hee

[glitch]

64. Only criminals smile coming out of court. Everybody else is pissed to be

there.

[WiseButAngrySara]

35. Thanks for the post Will. Still a mystery however. What if Luskin did

receive a letter from Fitz, but they are denying that it is a 'target' letter, because until Fitz makes up his mind about Rove's charges, Rove remains a 'subject.' It might just be a matter of semantics. Why would Rove voluntarily go in front of a GJ. unless his atty. knew Rove was soon to be indicted? And why would the GJ testimony take not minutes, but 3-4 hours? I read on another post, that Rove's atty's are very concerned about the length of time Rove was before the GJ, and that this time period was very long, and atypical for GJ's.

:kick: and R!

[IndyOp]

37. These days, when I donate to TruthOut - It is ALL for Jason!!

Not that there aren't other great folks, too -- but DAMN that Jason Leopold is HOT (as in accurate - I can't vouch for other traits that might qualify him for hot, though courageous is pretty damned hot!)

:bounce:

[IndyOp]

38. Laurence O'Donnell was just on AAR - he said we'll know in 24 hours...

whether Rove is a 'target' or a 'subject' -- we won't necessarily know if he is indicted.

O'Donnell also said that we can expect about 1 indictment per month up to/thru next January - Scooter Libby's trial.

:eyes:

[PaganPreacher]

86. It's been 24 hours....

Any news?

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[DrDebug]

39. Fat K&R

Take him away

[Beetwasher]

40. "..specifically denying my report that Rove received a target letter."

Right. Rove didn't receive the letter, Luskin probably did.

[demobabe]

42. If Luskin received the letter...

...then that means Rove did. There is no legal distinction.

[dchill]

44. To Republicans (and their "democrat" lawyers)...

Semantics ARE legalities. If Luskin received the letter, then Rove didn't, so therefore Leopold is a liar! See how easy that is? They don't care about legal distinctions - if they did, they'd never have been in office, let alone investigated by Fitz.

[demobabe]

48. No, it doesn't work that way.

A target letter is a very specific legal term and if Luskin received one, that would mean Rove's indictment would be imminent and Rove wouldn't have been been required to testify today. The fact Rove testified itself proves no "target" letter was issued. This rumor has been SO debunked in so many places.

Believe me, if Luskin received a target letter and Leopold was the first to report on it, I'd be promoting him all over the place. Unfortunately, Leopold's story is incorrect. Either that, or every major news source is wrong plus others like Salon, Buzzflash, and DailyKos.

[dchill]

50. "every major news source is wrong..."

Like that's never happened. I'm just saying that I think lawyers lie all the time, and I think this is one of those times. I'm saying Rove received (through Luskin or however) his letter last week, then he was "demoted" from his policy position. Rove testified before the GJ yesterday (WED) because he volunteered (begged for another chance); he was not summoned (so said David Schuster on "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann.)

As far as "every major news source is wrong...", well, remember that whole Iraq/WMD thing? There were plenty of good investigative reports to the contrary, but they went with WMD whole hog right up and into the invasion, didn't they? IMO, you can go ahead and promote Leopold all over the place, starting yesterday. To me, all signs point to Rove having gotten the letter, regardless of the semantic warfare he and Luskin continue to wage.

[demobabe]

51. I understand what you're saying...

Do you think Luskin would chance lying publicly about Patrick Fitzgerald? That could be one of the worst things he could do for his client. Judges don't like you putting words in their mouth (and I've witnessed that first hand to a really awful outcome).

BTW, Rove "volunteered" not to beg, but because he would have been subpeonaed otherwise. The "volunteered" part is spin coming from his lawyer to make it look like he's cooperating and isn't in trouble. He WILL be indicted, make no mistake.

I'll make you a deal: I'll publicly apologize to Jason Leopold if he's able to prove that Karl Rove (or his attorney) received a target letter as of or before April 26, 2006.

How about you? If I'm right, will you post you were wrong about Leopold?

on edit: I was previously under the assumption that target letters would not be issued prior to testifying before the Grand Jury. I was wrong about that and TalkLeft explains it well:

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/012634.html

[demobabe]

52. Correction to my posting

I was completely wrong about this part:
"A target letter is a very specific legal term and if Luskin received one, that would mean Rove's indictment would be imminent and Rove wouldn't have been been required to testify today. The fact Rove testified itself proves no "target" letter was issued."

See this posting by TalkLeft:
http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/012634.html

I stand by the rest of the posting. Luskin says there is no letter and that Rove is not a target. Leopold says there is a letter and Rove is a target.

Somebody is either lying or has bad information. We'll see, soon enough, I'm sure.

[lala_rawraw]

72. Who would you believe, Rove?

[demobabe]

75. Is this really your logic?

Because we hate Rove and believe he lies about everything, then Jason Leopold MUST be telling the truth?

If you have ANY journalistic integrity AT ALL, you know that doesn't follow and you should be demanding better.

Jason Leopold has - as he puts it - "a checkered past." He said so in the Washington Post. The WaPo also explained he's lost several media jobs for essentially incorrect facts in his stories. He needs to quote his sources instead of saying "trust me."

I just don't like this whole attitude Raw Story has essentially asking us, the readers to believe them, because we want to, because Raw Story tells us what we want to hear. Damn the facts and real journalism. And then bury anybody who dare suggest they could ever possibly be wrong...

[lala_rawraw]

81. I am pointing out your distorted either/or argument

So what if he has a checkered past, who are you to judge him? What have you done that was oooooo so important that you have the right to sit in judgment of someone working their ass off to get info to you? Wait, how did RS get into this? Oh, wait, you are one of the gang-a-thin folks who needs a reason to attack the alternative press. RS asks you nothing. You don't like RS, don't read it. You know real journalism? God, how sick is this, a five year old attacking a journalist doing his best because she can type like a monkey. Pathetic. Stop attacking our, that is the left's, journalists who are the only real journalists we have. If you want to be a journalist, go be one. Who the hell are you to attack Jason over and over and then when I come to his defense you smear an entire publication that I happen to write for? Pathetic and cheap and really undeserving of anything, including truth. Really, yes, you are that pathetic that you are actually sitting in judgment over a person you do not know, know nothing about, and judge on hearsay and gossip and then you claim some sort of ethics in all of this? Wow, you must really be very important and very honorable. What do you do dear that puts you out into the world like this where you are under attack from all sides, what? Do tell us what right you have to attack someone because they have a "checkered past"? Pathetic and CU is waiting for your return. I am done tolerating vitriols against journalists from half wits who have no clue what people have to go through to get a story out. You don't like his work, don't read him. You don't like my work, don't read me. What is this obsession with bringing people down, dragging them through the mud, and spreading bullshit about them as though you are in high school. Sick, pathetic, cheap and you call yourself a liberal? I don't think so.

[demobabe]

84. Oh my dearie!

Oh Larisa, you're so cute when you're flustered... Don't you have anything better than to call me a five year-old (which is properly hypenated, as per the AP Style & Libel manual I referenced earlier, which proves to me you've never seen one)?

Smooches,
-db

[lala_rawraw]

70. What major news sources?

So TruthOut is not a major news source? Or Raw who put this at top with link to TruthOut is not? Interesting, these are the same comments I got when I reported something recently, namely, "why would anyone go to you when they can go..." and then when the story was confirmed by a different publication, no apology was given. I have an idea, why not wait and see if this pans out before you attack his story as not correct? I mean really, what is the hurry to discredit it and what would make you think that you have better information? Do you work as a journalist? Where do you work as a journalist? Who are your sources? You seem to know better than the reporter on the story. Really, stop smearing the left press and wait to have your say instead of calling someone incorrect before the ink is dry on their article. Very ugly and very undeserved!!!

[demobabe]

76. Gawd, this is flamebait

The logic here makes my head spin. Truthout and Raw Story are both alternative media sources, as is Drudge Report. Raw Story frequently publishes unsubstantiated news and rumors, which no credible media would do.

"What's the hurry to discredit it?"

So you're saying the article is false or likely to be false?

"stop smearing the left press and wait to have your say instead of calling someone incorrect before the ink is dry on their article"

I.e., forget critical reading and thinking and just believe what we have to say in case it might be correct. Asking for sources and facts is NOT "smearing the left press." I DEMAND this of ALL news sources and am just as pissed when the big mainstream media cites "an unnamed source" or publishes single source articles. This is NOT responsible journalism. We DESERVE to have credible news media with a high work ethic which we can validate and know what we're reading is trustworthy. And if you and Raw Story want to be treated with respect and considered credible, you're gong to need to clean up your act and act in a professional manner. Nuking anybody who dares question you and defending indefensible mistakes do not meet this bar. And you wonder why news sources don't apologize in the event Raw Story was correct... Here, I just bought you a clue.

I'd love nothing more than to see Raw Story to be the left's credible source, but at this point it isn't. When Raw Story engages in factual reporting and abandons its hype scheme of driving traffic, I won't say another word.

I've also offered to publicly apologize to Jason Leopold if he is correct and it is proven true that a target letter was delivered to Rove or his attorney on April 26, 2006 or prior.

And yes, I have worked in the media since the late 80s and have worked for huge daily papers and small weeklies. I was also the editor of my college newspaper. Not a single one of my editors would ever consider publishing a story like Jason Leopold published yesterday - and with good reason. Ever read a copy of the AP Style and Libel manual?

[Beetwasher]

47. LOL!

Yeah, you'd think so. Obviously you don't know any lawyers.

[demobabe]

49. Heh heh...

I'd suggest checking your facts before posting.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demobabe]

80. Who you calling Chester?

Okay, you believe Jason Leopold. That's your right. Got it.

As for me, I'm asking for real facts and sources, and that's my right. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to just take the word of a reporter who has been convicted for Grand Larceny and has been fired from media jobs for having factual problems with his stories. He's going to have to prove to me his word is good, because his history says otherwise.

We shouldn't have to question Leopold. He should put his sources out there so we know what he is saying is true. This would be responsible journalism.

[Beetwasher]

82. LOL!!! Yeah, Ok, Chester

Smear smear smear, that's all you've got.

Yeah, because ALL journalists reveal their sources. :eyes:

That's pathetic Chester, and you know it.

[demobabe]

83. There is a thing called credibility

"Yeah, because ALL journalists reveal their sources."

Yeah, and ALL journalists are convicted for Grand Larceny and repeatedly lose their job for problems with facts. :eyes:

There is a thing called credibility and Jason Leopold doesn't make this cut. He may have great intentions and be trying to make a new start, but to my eyes, it appears he is still doing the same thing that lost him his job other reputable media outlets.

[Beetwasher]

85. Good Lord Are You Pathetic

When all you've got is smears, you talk of credibility? LOL! Good one Chester!

[stepnw1f]

41. Game Over for the Freepers

Oh well... time to come down from your cloud.

[lonestarnot]

53. Gee I was about to run out of patience. You going down Red Rover!

:rofl:

[npincus]

55. glad to hear it... but why would Luskin antagonize Fitz with a

blatantly false statement? That doesn't make sense. Unless Rove directed him explicitly to do so, to buy time and cover for the WH until Rove decides what to do (damage control).

[Auntie Bush]

56. That confirms our suspicion that Rove was really demoted because

he was about to be indited and bush* didn't want his official policy adviser to be arrested...must less embarrassing to have his political hack go to prison.

[Alizaryn]

57. Thanks for the update WilliamPitt

[helderheid]

62. kick - making sure to spell out the word kick.

[bridgit]

63. Jason Leopold!! you are greatly needed in this world...

:thumbsup: please continue, sir

[lala_rawraw]

71. I think he needs to hear that right now, given the psychos

Who fancy themselves experts because they can push letters on a keyboard and see it "poof" like magic appear in a public place. I am so sick of these jerks attacking everyone and everything from the comfort of their own couch. Cowards have it easy, don't they? Anyway, I am sure Jason will be happy to see this welcome sight of gratitude.:)

[CabalPowered]

73. You, Jason, Will, Buzz, all of you kick a**

Please don't let the detractors get under your skin. You guys and gals provide an invaluable service and it is much appreciated by thousands, including myself.

[stop the bleeding]

77. ditto n/t

[kpete]

78. Jason is one in a million

I am so greatful for his fine work!

If you are listening Jason - YOU are needed and appreciated!

[stop the bleeding]

79. we would be lost

without people like him and Larisa, also props to the DU'ers on the inside who help us make heads or tails of situtations.

[Duer 157099]

69. kick n/t

[madmark]

74. the target letter may have been the cause of Rove's "portfolio" change