CRAZY PEOPLE CAN SAY ANY CRAZY
THING THEY WANT ON THE INTERNET

I posted late Sunday night a link to an article originating on the truthout site that Karl Rove had already been indicted, although it has not yet been announced, and that the White House gossip is that he's essentially telling staffers there about it. The ever wise Rob Salkowitz of Emphasis Added dropped by to splash a little cold water on my face.

From Real Art comments:

This would be great if true. Rove has denied it, the mainstream press is utterly silent about it, and even some on the left are wondering how this reporter managed to scoop everyone on such an important story. I'm keeping my hopes low at this point, so I can only be pleasantly suprised and not disappointed.

My response:

Well, of course, this is speculative, based on what appears to be gossip. But you're right to keep your expectations low--I guess DeLay's resignation, which would have been completely unbelievable to me in 2003, has got me in an optimistic mood these days.

Turns out that there's more smoke here than even Rob knew about, maybe even some fire. This story is, indeed, a bit fishy.

From Salon courtesy of Eschaton:

Karl Rove, Jason Leopold and the hunt for the truth

We contacted Leopold again this week when Rove's spokesman denied his most recent story in interviews with the New York Sun and Byron York of the National Review. We asked Leopold the following questions:

* Are you standing by the story? And by "the story," I don't mean that Rove's indictment is imminent, but rather the story that you reported: that Rove has already been indicted, that Fitzgerald met with Luskin for "about 15 hours" Friday, that Fitzgerald "served" Rove's attorneys with a copy of an indictment, and that Fitzgerald told Luskin that Rove had "24 hours" to get his affairs in order.

* If you're standing by the story, can you shed any light on why your report is so different than the characterization Rove's spokesman is offering?

* TalkLeft says you claim to have spoken four times with Rove spokesman Mark Corallo over the weekend. Corallo tells TalkLeft that he's never spoken to anyone who identified himself as "Jason Leopold." Corallo seems to be suggesting that you may have identified yourself as someone named "Joel" from the Sunday Times of London. Can you explain?

Leopold didn't answer any of the questions. This is what he said instead:

"Call anyone else besides Corallo, Luskin? Have you ever tried to go beyond the spokesman for a story? Did you call [Fitzgerald spokesman Randall] Samborn? Have you tried to find out where Rove was Friday? Did you call the White House? Did you do any digging? No, you didn't. Call the White House. Find out where Rove was.

Click here for the rest (you'll have to click through an annoying ad to get there, though).

The Salon article also notes that this truthout reporter, Leopold, has played fast and loose with the truth before, lifting text from other people's articles, and presenting as facts events that cannot be verified. At any rate, this now sounds, to me at least, like the same sort of reporter fibbing that has plagued bigtime news outlets like USA Today and the New York Times. It's a bit surprising because the bigtime reporters are, well, bigtime, and Leopold is strictly smalltime internet potatoes. I guess every pond has a scramble to see who's going to be the big fish.

Not that the report is necessarily wrong. But given this guy's troubled past, given how he's responded to criticism, and given the fact that pretty much no other paper has picked up on the story, my skepticism has gone way up on whether Rove has actually already been indicted. Sorry to lead you astray. It's just that the story was so damned believable.

Anyway, I hope to have a more proper celebration if and when the indictment really does come down.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$