Truthout's Marc Ash-Regarding Mr. Luskin's Statement

Regarding Mr. Luskin's Statement

By Marc Ash,

Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 10:48:36 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


We are stunned by the magnitude of the reaction to the article we published yesterday morning. We have put our cards on the table. We invite Mr. Luskin to do the same.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/13/104836/605

Thanks, kpete - again!

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:


Full docket text:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Reggie B. Walton :Status Conference as to I. LEWIS LIBBY held on 6/12/2006; Defendant Continued on (PR Bond); Status Conference/Motion Hearing set 8/16/06 at 10:00 am Closed Session Hearing; (Court Reporter Phyllis Merana) (Defense Attorney James Brochin for Theodore Wells, William Jeffress, John Cline; US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and Ron Roos for Peter Zeidenberg; (mpt, )

And pathetic.

What is going on with this. The Times and Washington Post reporting 2 different things...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2676054&mesg_id=2676054

:hi:

:eyes:

That ABC editorial gave David Schuster a complete pass on vetting his multiple stories? Good ol' Disney-owned, administration-buttboys ABC?

Yeah, I'll just guess they did.

I think I know - but there may have been an update I am not aware of.

of ABC News, has been all over this story like a cheap suit, essentially stating the same things that were published on TO. For Mr. Schuster to get these stories greenlighted, they must have been vetted, as well as his sourcing, by ABC Editorial. You can be sure that during this vetting, ABC Legal was also in the mix, as is usual corporate policy when something hot is on the burner.

Frankly, I hardly think that this story has played to its conclusion. This is not traffic or drug court here. This is "The Great Game" of Washington DC, and you can be sure that much that would make Machiavelli wet his pants in glee is transpiring.

And no, I am not ready to go tossing people overboard just yet. I have never been a big fan of circular firing squads.

Isn't he the reporter that is always on Countdown with keith reporting on the Rove story?

credible and well-vetted, so they went with them. But, the sources were, a) wrong, or half wrong, or 2/3rds wrong (or whatever); b) behind-the-scene events got away from them; or c) they had ill motives and were deliberately burning Leopold/TO. Of these, I think "b" is now the most likely (behind-the-scenes events got away from them). In any case, there is only one circumstance in which Leopold/TO would out their sources (whose careers and even lives may be at risk), and that is if they could determine that it was a deliberate burn (and that may not be easy to do).

Luskin, on the other hand, has a LETTER, which he is apparently not willing to disclose the full contents of.

Leopold/TO CANNOT "put their cards on the table" in the sense of outing their sources (unless they've been burned, and know they've been burned--and there is no sign of that). But they DID put their cards on the table, as to revealing what their sources were telling them, and that they believed their sources.

Luskin is playing games, apparently. And a likely reason for this--a reasonable speculation, considering all facts (including the visible evidence of perjury by Rove)--is that Rove, who has appeared before the Grand Jury five times, one the them very recently, has cut a deal. It has been my guess, in previous posts, that Rove--whom many people tend to think of as the main villain in the Plame outing--was something of a patsy. Libby and those above Libby (Cheney, Rumsfeld) were very possibly setting Rove up to take the fall on this, but Rove, in truth, was a minor, outfront player, and his reputation for dirty politics was being used to create this narrative (cover story) of political revenge. This is based on the theory that Plame/Brewster-Jennings--an extensive WMD counter-proliferation network, 20 years in the making, which had the goal of PREVENTING war (not manufacturing it)--was the MAIN target of the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings, and that Wilson was a secondary target. Re: Fitzgerald's case, the line between indicting or not indicting may be knowledge of Plame's status--deliberate, culpable outing and endangerment of US agents/contacts (Cheney, Libby and, lurking in the background, Rumsfeld*), vs. political operatives like Rove who may have been deliberately disinformed on the legality of what he was doing. (Joe Wilson's book has a passage on a dustup between Libby and Rove, about Rove taking the blame for the outing.)

Rove is a scumbag--a liar and an election thief, and undoubtedly has committed many crimes he hasn't yet been caught for--but he may well be a minor and relatively innocent player in this particular conspiracy--the larger conspiracy to destroy the US counter-proliferation network that stood in the Bush junta's way on manufacturing war with Iraq and also Iran (and that may also have been tracking Cheney illicit arms dealings, and who knows what else?).*

---------

*(Rumsfeld is my candidate for mastermind of the larger conspiracy. I think Cheney was the WH operative for it, but that the overarching plot--which goes back to the forging of the Niger documents in Italy in 2001--was hatched in the Pentagon, by Rumsfeld, who was also the person who was in the most critical and sensitive position, on 9/11, with the decision-making power over NORAD in his hands--appropriated by him just six months before--and was AWOL during the critical hour, when a defense of the capitol should have been implemented, and was not. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld is likely to be the one left standing, after all the dust settles from the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings and the Fitzgerald investigation and prosecution. Rumsfeld may be essential to junta war plans against Iran; Cheney likely is not, and is very much a drag on phony Republican electoral "comeback" narratives. There is a hiatus on Iran, because the Bushites are such buggers that no one is cooperating with them, and war with China over oil is a bit much much even for the Bushites to bite off. But we have not heard the end of it, I'm afraid. Iran, and all Mideast oil fields, are part of the Project for a New American Century agenda, and if they couldn't get it by planting and "finding" WMDs in Iraq, "tracing" them to Iran, and invading Iran close upon invading Iraq--a plausible outline of the Rumsfeld scheme, that Brewster-Jennings may have foiled--they likely have some other nefarious scheme in the works, possibly involving these "black ops" teams we now have on the ground in Iran setting up some kind of "Gulf of Tonkin"-type incident.)

Let's see 'em.

I doubt Luskin will comply.

they have been had and they know it. :grr:

over Rove's lawyer any day.

their so called time but now the are just Wayne Madisons(sp)

Is there a reason why you choose to believe Rove's lawyer over TO?

wrong.

TO is not presenting any evidence either, and yet you seem content to accept that :shrug:

What "cards" is TO referring to? Could someone show them to me? I'd like to see them. They are apparently on some table somewhere.

what Ash's statement means. What response is he talking about?

:toast:

The only thing they can do now is reveal their source, but they take the risk that no source will ever trust them again. On the other hand, they're taking the risk that no reader will ever trust them again, which is worse.

They're only digging themselves in deeper. I HIGHLY DOUBT Luskin is reading truthout at the moment, biting his fingernails and deciding how to respond. :eyes:

I can't help but be deliciously intrigued by this Truthout thing.

What the hell is Marc Ash talking about?

And a strong wind came through and exposed it for the shabby structure it was. It's quickly becoming the case that anyone associated with the false truthout story will be permanently marked by this public load of nonsenses.

It wasn't like Luskin was going to mention the letter without cause. (is there really a letter?) It didn't absolve his client of anything. He just wanted to tamp down speculation after Jason's prodding article.

It smells like wishful thinking on Luskin's part, possibly a nudge to Fitz to give some further statement absolving Rove, which the letter does not, and which Fitz has so far declined to do.

If the letter were a sham, don't you think Fitzgerald would have rebutted it by now?

sight unseen? shoddy, 'trust me' journalism imo., worse than anything Jason's accused of.

a new low if we start to accept administration sourced reports as truth without substantiation.

and there's certainly no proof it says what Luskin said it says. If it did, wouldn't it be released to the MSM to be used as a propaganda tool?

I'm certainly staying tuned.

That was on the Daily Show. Why would he say that, I wonder. Maybe he was wrong. But maybe he was right.

We'll see...

from saying that Rove isn't going to be indicted when he, according to Leopold has been for a month? Luskin has shouted it to the whole world and wouldn't that make Rove and Luskin both insane if it wasn't true? These men (and I use that term loosely)are way too smart for that.

Libby's trial isn't until after the November midterm elections, IIRC. If Luskin can spread a layer of media manure over the whole thing now, given that Fitzgerald has NEVER talked out of turn about his ongoing cases, he might be able to affect public opinion on the matter until after November, which is what they care about.

Same crap happened after 2004. The Bush admin was caught in a number of lies regarding statements they made just before the election -- but that didn't come out until AFTER the election.

Just saying that they get away with lying all the time. Why do you think they'd be at all worried about lying now if they could bury this thing (media coverage-wise) until next year?

honestly believe that's the kind of person he is?

He never, ever, ever talks about cases outside of court. He's rather reknowned for that.

of those lies were buried within deeper issues or could be written-off to being misled or mistaken. If this is a lie, there is no way that they will ever be able to live this down unless we have already lost, and we are already in a dictatorship.

He is a defense attorney. His job is not to help Republicans; it is to protect his client.

And publicly lying about correspondance between himself and the prosector would not be helping that cause.

it would have been plastered all over the media. He may have a letter, and it may say what he is claiming to a point...could be a lot more in that letter than that...Like Will be no indictment if Rove was to testify against another suspect...could be a whole lotta nuggets in that letter.

If it were all the letter says, why isn't it shown graphically word for word on FOX NEWS?

SHOW ME THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER LUSKIN!

in Fitz' corner to verify this.

Luskin doesn't have to show the contents of the letter...But think about it, if it completely exonerated Rove, they would have it flown behind an airplane, they would put it on billboards, it would be plastered on every media available.

Instead all we got, was Luskin said, that Fitz said, in a letter, that Fitz does not anticipate charges for Rove.

lookie, lookie over there, because something else is going on over here.

Something else is going on.

Hm, what don't they want the media to really talk about?

Is the report from Haditha coming out today?

Is our economy about to implode?

just wondering :eyes:

you cannot broadcast what Luskin did to the world without it being true. This would be a lie that couldn't be covered up and it would be a total disaster for this insane administration.

What is Ash talking about. Truthout has NO cards.

I'm not even sure Ash is living in the real world at this point.

There isn't any "magnitude" of reaction to the Truthout story. The massive media reaction this morning, obvious by watching virtually every news outlet, is Luskin's assertion that Fitz has informed him his client (Rove) that he will NOT be indicted.

Truthout's nonsense about "sealed v sealed" is not the big story this morning anywhere at all.

It's probably safe, at this point, to write Truthout off completely as an even remotely serious news site.

edited for spelling

I keep asking why little website would have ALL this information where no other source...even websites that have built their popularity and reputations on this case wouldn't even put out a similar story...yet alone verify any of Leopold's story. The more this drags on the worse Truth Out and their supporters here look.

This reminds me of the wingnut who still hang on to the Iraq had nukes stories...citing their own websites and "exclusives" that have been proven wrong time and again.

Truthout is not alone in attempting to jump the gun and gain some type of "coup" (not sure with whom) by speculating or stating they had inside information on this case, which its obvious they didn't.

Leopold claimed he would divluge his source(s) which hasn't happened.

Isn't it time to focus on something that matters around here? Like networking among one another to kick Repugnicans out this fall? Maybe I'm just not "hip" enough here. This non-story has been beaten to dog food...and with it has turned this forum into a joke.

They have a garbage hand and have gone all in.

The match is lost, everyone's gone home - and TO doesn't realize it & is still claiming they've got a winning hand. It's kind of sad, actually.

.

case file number and then later on that day, Rove's lawyers are releasing their story... Is this just a coincidence? I would like to see the letter to Rove as Fitz's office will not confirm Luskin's story.

TO published "a" case file number. They offered no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that "Sealed v. Sealed" is an indictment of Rove or of anyone else. And it now appears that there is considerable reason to doubt that it is. See this post and those following it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1406622&mesg_id=1410407

to be true or not.. That is not what I am saying... I am saying that I find it strange TO posts this article yesterday and Luskin comes out with his statement later on that afternoon...

They claim it has to with Rove. They offer no proof whatsoever. Connecting TO's unsubstantiated (and likely mistaken) claim with Ruskin's statement...which specifically claims that Fitz informed him yesterday...well, let's just say I don't share your speculation that there is any connection.

hours of each other.... Maybe you don't, but it was weird....

What, I don't know.:)

Leopold,Ash, and Pitt until I'm proven wrong.This is NOT an open process-more like a game of "Battleship"-we will never know what really happened until Fitzgerald yells "G-6" and the repubs scream "you sank my battleship!".....

This self-destruction of TO has been very sad to watch. Please just say you're sorry and then leave this story behind. Stupid crap like telling us to "have faith" and nonsensical two line posts like the one from today are quickly turning them into, as a previous poster put it, a joke like Wayne Madsen.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/13/104836/605
"To clarify: The entire basis for the information that "Rove has been cleared" comes from a verbal statement by Karl Rove's attorney. No one else confirms that. As Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin is bound to act - in all regards - in Rove's best interest. We question his motives."

"Truthout will issue a statement on the Rove story today at 5:00 p.m. Pacific. The post will appear on our blog at:" http://forum.truthout.org/blog/