Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

The Rove Indictment
Posted by: Dale Franks on Sunday, May 14, 2006

Byron York, who reports for Captitol Hill and National Review has spent the day trying to run down the Karl Rove indictment story.

According to Jason Leopold's original story at lefty, indymedia-style web site:
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

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 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
No other news service—or perhaps I should drop the "other" from the preceding phrase—has run with the story over the weekend. That's odd, since it would be a major political story.

According to York, however:
I talked with Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo, who told me the story was completely baseless. Part of our conversation:
Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?
Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday?
Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives?
Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?
Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted?
So there seems to be nothing to the story, certainly nothing which any other reporter has seen fit to report. Which raises a question: What is going on here?
That's a very good question. Is Mr. Leopold actually in touch with anyone important enough to know what is going on? Is he being snowed? Is he making it up? And why would he run with such a declarative, ostensibly fact-jammed story, when even the basic facts appear to be incorrect?

Very odd.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Would Rove’s spokesman answer "yes" to any of those questions? Please.
Written By: DemforLife
URL: http://
They could be holding the story to overshadow GWB’a address to the nation on Monday.
Written By: Steve
I was wondering where Leopold had landed.

IIRC, he got bounced from the WSJ after causing them to print a retration of his reporting that was so long it ran over two issues ... then bounced from Salon for plagiarizing the Financial Times ... then gave Krugman the e-mail that Krugman cited as proving Thomas White was "evil", which it turned out wasn’t entirely real, leading to a retraction of that story and a rare Krugman apology ...

Good to see he’s still keeping up the good work!
Written By: Jim Glass
Would Rove’s spokesman answer "yes" to any of those questions? Please.
Would it be too much to take off the ideological blinders and deal with the world as it really is?

If it was true, he’d’ve answered "No comment". You don’t tell a reporter a direct lie for attribution. Especially not when you know the truth will be out in the next 24-48 hours or so. You don’t pointlessly destroy your own credibility as a spokesman. Perhaps the spokesman doesn’t know the truth, or what he thinks he knows is wrong, but you don’t trash any possibility of future usefulness as a spokesman by lying to the press for no purpose.

Although, your powers of analysis go far in explaining your political affiliation.

Written By: Dale Franks
The Indymedia sites on the left, and the Free Republic site on the right, are valuable "early warning" news sites.

They are not always right. Neither is the New York Times, Matt Drudge, or any other outlet.

However, Indymedia and Free Republic are often the first with important news. They fill in details the mainstream media doesn’t dare to. They cover stories no one else will touch.

By all means take Jason Leopold with a grain of salt, but don’t rely on the mainstream media for your news. You will be learning too little, too late.

The grand jury may not have returned a true bill on Rove yet, but I think they will.
Written By: Clayton Hallmark
URL: http://
I sure hope it’s not true for Karl’s mothers sake. Heck of a mother’s day present if it is !
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
If Rove was served indictment papers, and deliberately failed to disclose that information, I doubt strongly that Carallo would more or less verify Jason Leopold’s story over the weekend. Is anything even at stake for Corallo as a spokesman? Don’t forget Rove already denied any involvement whatsoever via Scott McClellan. Let’s admit that for we who parse every clause spoken on the matter, a "no-comment" from Corallo would mean the same thing as admitting Rove’s indictment.
Written By: rhys
URL: http://
Corallo said that Mr. Fitzgerald was in Chicago and there was no meeting. Leopold says he has more than 2 sources. This should be easy to ascertain who is correct.
Written By: wy
URL: http://
I would so love for Karl Rove to be indicted, and hope that he will be, but anyone who gives Leopold’s story any credence, especially after Corallo’s statement, is loony bonkers. If Corallo is lying, Fitzgerald would surely denounce him — and there’s absolutely no one who would believe Corallo over Fitzgerald. And anyone who thinks that there isn’t "anything even at stake for Corallo as a spokesman" is plain retarded, beyond reach of any reasoning. If there was a meeting, Corallo surely would have either stonewalled on everything or would have said there was a meeting but refused to give details as to what was discussed; there would be *no reason* for him to lie, especially when his lie would immediately be refuted. OTOH, Rove and the Bush White House had every reason to lie about whether Rove was involved — DUH.
Written By: truth machine
URL: http://
Great work!

I linked your piece to one regarding the MSM and us pajama types over at From On High.

I sometimes wonder how some people can read such silliness and immediately take it to be gospel. The word "hatred" probably has something to do with it.

Then there’s the hypocrisy factor ...
Written By: Jerry Fuhrman
URL: http://www.blogfromonhigh.blogspot
Karl Rove’s mother committed suicide. Was she clarivoyant?
Written By: Steven Davis
URL: http://
I am not a subscriber, but the NY Sun got a vehement denial from the same spokesman:

A spokesman for a top White House aide under scrutiny in a criminal leak probe, Karl Rove, yesterday vigorously denied an Internet report that the political adviser to President Bush was told that he had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

"The story is a complete fabrication," the spokesman for Mr. Rove, Mark Corallo, told The New York Sun. "It is both malicious and disgraceful."
Written By: Tom Maguire
Interesting reactions. I’m especially appreciative of the idea that Leopold’s sources wouldn’t lie, b/c the truth would be out soon enough.

Erm, don’t you think a President lying about WMD might be found-out, after the war is over? Or is there some expectation that Bush is going to plant, and then "find," WMD?

And, if it turns out Rove isn’t indicted or whathaveyou in the next 24 hours, will there be an accusation that Leopold lied? Or will it turn out that sources were inaccurate, phones suffered static, etc., etc.? Do non-Republicans lie?

It would be the ultimate in irony if one of Leopold’s sources used the term "slam-dunk."

Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks