ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, May 22, 2006

Let's rachet up the story a bit... That apology? Nevermind.

I was going to add to St. Wendelers excellent post below, but instead decided to create my own, because there's just too much goodness in the latest from Marc Ash at TruthOut:

Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked
Gotcha, stuff you think you know in one category, stuff you just make up in the other category. At least your going to clearly mark them this time. Got it.
We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about.
But are they in a position to lie about it to you? And how independent are they if they all have the facts from a (in your words) "locked down" meeting?

We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth.
So you in reality you know nothing. Fitz has refused to confirm or deny, and the other side has denied. Why does that automatically mean that the side you are rooting against is lying?
We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials.
Of course you don't print that information. Your previous article just says that you have additional sources that prove they are lying, but don't provide any details.
We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove.
So two network news crews were outside the building waiting (wishing?) for the same thing you are apparantly wishing for, but haven't reported anything. Yet this means that you are telling the truth? The entire Washington Redskins football team could have been staked out in the Patton Boggs bathroom and it wouldn't mean that you were telling the truth. The only thing it does mean is that your ego's are stroked by the presence of network news crews being in the same place you are.
We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night.
You still haven't provide any information on how you know that or the details of what a "lockdown" means. Are lockdowns unusual? Was it the whole 4th floor? Why would they need to lock down the whole 4th floor to negotiate a plea bargain? Additional information would be helpful in determining if this little factoid adds anything but spice to the story. Lockdown does not equal "indictment."
We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.
I would call the Luskin's and Corallo's denials pretty close to a retraction. Obviously Karl Rove isn't going to threaten you with a libel lawsuit.. He's a public figure and you can probably say whatever you want about him, that doesn't mean its true. And as to Tony Snow, nice use of the word "now" as if Tony Snow has been on the job long enough to discuss Karl Rove, well, ever, in his capacity as White House Press Secretary.
Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.Your Co-Conspirator,
So basically, you are out of your league, your sources don't want to stick their names behind the story, and yet you think this enhances the truthfulness of their charges rather than cause doubt. And because left-wing netrooters that want to see Karl Rove indicted so bad support you, you're willing to jump off the cliff with them.
We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)
Translation: We're about to make stuff up. What a bang-up news organization. Mary Mapes isn't on staff with you is she?

We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up.

How about, "Your printing false information." If you basically say someones is already indicted and they weren't in fact indicted, how would you expect them to react? There is no scenario in your world where Karl isn't indicted is there?
"I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization.
And this means, what exactly? Karl forced Howie to write a hit piece against you using his mind rays? Howard Kurtz is the media critic of the Washington Post, maybe you've heard of it. You sir are making an ass out of yourself and your organization with your so called journalism on this story. I would think that Howard doesn't need any prodding to write about you.
I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill."
See above. She covers the Justice Department for the Wall Street Journal (maybe you've heard about that one too).
We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization.
Howard Kurtz is conservative muscle? I watched Anne Marie Squeo this morning on CSPAN, she doesnt' seem like she's rooting for ol Karl. Just doesn't believe in printing her wishing and seeing if they come true. Rove's camp doesn't need much of an effort (concerted or otherwise) to discredit the story.
Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.
Now that is just funny. Your story hasn't panned out or been confirmed by any other news organization in the world, in fact its been derided by more than a few. The primary participants in the story have denied it in no uncertain terms. And instead of retracting your story, you lead yourself further down the rabbit hole and assume that Rove has not only turned states evidence, but is ratting out Cheney. Why Cheney? Well why not, right? Do you ever assume that perhaps, just perhaps, there isn't an indictment at all? And instead you're being led astray? And no duh, there's a great deal of activity going on. You could have said that about any non-holiday portion of any of the past 3 years. That's hardly a scoop (or evidence that Karl Rove is about to be frog-marched).

We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.
Why do I get the feeling that by the "community" he's referring to the DUers and the Kos crowd. Just don't stumble, ok?

Your Co-Conspirator
ARC: Brian

Comments (2)
Ayman said...

damn the man! bring the bull moose party back!

ptg said...

You know what these cats smoke, don't you? Thoughts like, "Rove turns sate's evidence", represent wishful thinking, but this goes beyond.