Whatever Happened to the Karl Rove Indictment Watch?

It seems ages ago by now, but it's barely a week since Robert Luskin, attorney for Karl Rove, announced that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had told him that Rove would likely not be indicted. Before that, as I mentioned last month, speculation had been running high that such an indictment was imminent. Jason Leopold at Truthout.org even went so far as to report that Rove had already been indicted. Although I was optimistic, I was skeptical of the details Leopold provided and suggested that we should treat it as nothing more than a rumor until we heard further confirmation.

So now, with Luskin's pronouncement, Leopold's story has been found wanting and he's withdrawn it and skulked away with his tail between his legs, right? Well, maybe not. Leopold's immediate response to the announcement was to stand by his own story. Tim Grieve at Salon described Leopold's appearance on Ed Shultz's radio show the day after the story broke.

Leopold acknowledged that he's "having to juggle many different things now," but he said repeatedly that he stands by the story he wrote: "Until I hear from Patrick Fitzgerald, until Patrick Fitzgerald actually makes a statement and says, 'This is, in fact, exactly what's going on,' I'm not going to budge from my position in terms of what was reported."

A couple of days later, Truthout publisher Marc Ash did back away from the story ("Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications.") But he also promised "a more comprehensive accounting" on Monday.

Well, Monday arrived. In the meantime, The Washington Post published a piece by a reporter from The Sunday Times who claims Leopold impersonated him when he talked with Rove's representatives, further undermining Leopold's credibility. With all this coming their way, you might expect Ash and Truthout to have repudiated Leopold and his story altogether. Just the opposite.

[A]s we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.

. . .
Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128" [a sealed case that Leopold seems to believe contains the Rove indictment], forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.

The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office.

Some people have written off Leopold and his story, and with what limited information we have, it does appear to be completely at odds Luskin's claim that Rove is off the hook. Yet, when Truthout tried to followup with Fitzgerald's office to get details on any of this, they're met with a studious "I have no comment." I'm certainly not ready to buy in to any of this, but given who the players are, there's no way of knowing quite how deeply the full truth is buried here. I just hope somebody keeps digging.

(And a hat tip to Jeralyn at Talk Left. Her index of Valerie Plame stories is invaluable in keeping track of what's going on.)