Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today:

1. Karl Rove & the Journalist's Burden of Proof - Squirming at Truthout, MSNBC, and the Yearly Kos

Listen here:


Download
Subscribe
Add Wizbang Podcast to iTunes

Karl Rove and the Journalist's Burden of Proof

Karl Rove was notified by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald that he was not the target of his CIA-Plame-Leak investigation. As Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute reported a few days ago:

David Johnston of the Times tells us that Fitzmas will be indefinitely postponed:

WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.

This news has caused heartburn for to some on the left who have been way "out in front of the news-cycle" in claiming that Rove was already indicted. Jason Leopold at Truthout.org has been the one who has been the furthest out. On May 13 he reported that the indictment had already happened. Our Wizbang-in-Chief Kevin Aylward noticed his report, and posted the following on May 15:

It's really quite amusing to watch liberal bloggers fall all over themselves linking to a story at the ironically named Truthout that purports to break news that Karl Rove has been indicted. Of course no such thing has actually happened.

The author of the story, freelance writer Jason Leopold, seems to be working his way down the media chain; going from respectable outlets like The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times, to online magazine Salon, and now a kooky site like Truthout.

Jason was forced a few days later to back off on his claim, in a post on Truthout:

On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title.

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.

I love the idea that he was just "too far out in front of the news-cycle". The assumption that it was just a matter of timing, not accuracy. It might eventually happen, and if it does, they want credit for the scoop. Protein Wisdom noticed this.

Several people have pointed me to Truthout's "apology" for advancing the Rove indictment story, which Truthout reported on in a way that has (to date) refused to correspond with either a) their enthusiasm for said indictment, or b) any ostensible connection to reality.

But--because there is always still the chance Rove will be indicted-- Truthout reserves the right to re-claim the scoop, even if they miss the date by, oh, say, months.

Jason Leopold will just not let this story die, despite the latest developments.

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom points to a Raw Story post, with a podcast in which

Jason Leopold, the Truthout.org reporter who asserted May 13 that Karl Rove had been indicted in the CIA leak case, told the syndicated Ed Schultz radio show that he stands by his original report.

Play clip.

Stop the tape here. Leopold is telling Rove's attorney what he has to do? Release the letter? Are we to assume that Leopold is telling the truth at Luskin is lying? Please. "Apparently he claims that there's a letter."

Clearly, the old adage that if you are in a hole, stop digging, doesn't appear to have reached the ace reporter Leopold at Truthout.org. Listen to him attempt to spin this into a requirement for the rest of the world to prove him wrong, rather than force Leopold to prove his allegations. Later on in the call, he gets boxed into a corner by Ed Shultz. Listen to how many times Leopold says, "What if?" in the following clip. What journalism school bus did this guy take? The short bus?

Play clip.

Some in the mainstream media have also been squirming over this. David Shuster at MSNBC has been one of the most "out in front of the news-cycle" reporters in the business on Rove. From Newsbusters we have an audio clip of the May 8 show.

Play clip.

Let's review the burden of proof Shuster employed to reach this conclusion.

"First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation, or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple -- a week and a half ago, unless you feel that`s your only chance of avoiding indictment. So, in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges."

This statement makes no sense whatsoever. Fitzgerald asked him to testify, so it's Rove's burden to "stop the charges"? That's not the way I understand the law. I thought the prosecution had to prove something, right? Whatever.

In light of the exoneration of Rove last week, Shuster was put on the hot seat about his immanent indictment prediction. Appearing on Countdown with Keith Olbermanm on June 13, Shuster back-pedaled only slightly. As Johnny Dollar at Olbermann Watch tells it:

How was David Shuster to explain all those imminent Rove indictments he's been trumpeting for months? That's when Slippery Shuster's whirlwind spin went ballistic.

Desperately backpedaling to cover his own sorry reportage, Slippery first shifted the responsibility to those "lawyers" who, until tonight, were his excellent, thoroughly reliable sources. Then it was Fitzgerald's fault, because he only charges cases that are slam dunks. .. It was everybody's fault except David Shuster's.

In this clip, stand-in host Brian Unger interviews Shuster, from MSNBC

Play clip.

So now we are to understand that it wasn't Rove's innocence, it was that Fitzgerald is an unusually careful prosecutor. If only we had a prosecutor who was willing to indict an innocent man, he seems to be saying, we could have had our Fitzmas. And note the veiled reference to that bane of the Clinton era, Kenneth Starr.

To really hear how the loons on the left perceive the Plame story, you have to do what Byron York at the National Review does, and that is attend the lefty's events, like the recent Yearly Kos event. He attended a panel discussion on the Plame leak affair at the Las Vegas convention. Byron writes of Plame panel:

They were there for a 90-minute discussion of the investigation and its related themes: the treachery and criminality of the Bush administration, the cowardice and submissiveness of the Washington press corps, and the courage and heroism of, well, themselves, in daring to expose it all.

The crowd was large and friendly; of all the panel discussions at YearlyKos, the CIA-leak panel attracted the biggest and most vocal audience. But as it turned out, the conversation was, despite the all-star cast, entirely unremarkable for anyone who has followed the left-wing blogosphere's analysis of the CIA leak affair. [Larry] Johnson called the actions of administration officials "treason." [Joe] Wilson gave his grand theory of the case. [Dan] Froomkin called former New York Times reporter Judith Miller a "humiliated and discredited shill." ...

Listen to this excerpt from the introduction, where "Jane Hamsher, the blogger who regularly obsesses over the CIA-leak investigation on her website, firedoglake.com" frames the debate. Listen to the self congratulations and self-importance of her intro.

Play clip.

To really get a sense for how far out on a limb these guys are on the issue, their sense of moral certitude that they understand the issue so much better than the timid reporters in the mainstream media, and their certainty that Rove would soon be frog marched out of the white house, listen to Larry Johnson. Johnson is a former CIA analyst. His speech probably mirrors the opinions of many CIA analysts currently in the organization. And it helps explain why there have been so many selective leaks damaging to the administration. It is clear that others in the CIA who share his views have been leaking information to their friends in the NY Times on a regular basis damaging national security in a time of war. In this section, Johnson claims that the leak of Plame's name has severely damaged the nation. And he suggests that more indictments were on their way. Thanks to C-SPAN for the video.

Play clip.

And the thunderous applause goes on. Byron comments further in his National Review piece:

What no one seemed to have seriously considered was that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation might be winding down, rather than ramping up. Indeed, underlying much of the discussion was the assumption that there was more -- much more -- to come in the case. ...

Disclosing the sources and methods of the NSA eavesdropping on terrorist phone calls was no big deal. Disclosing that Wilson was sent to Africa to sip tea by his wife in the CIA was treason. Thanks for clearing that up Larry. Think how these fools must have felt when the exoneration of Rove was announced by his attorney last week. Byron goes on.

One might think the news would be devastating to a group that had invested so much hope in the prospect that Rove would be, in the words of Joseph Wilson, "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." But in fact, Luskin's statement didn't put much of a damper on the Plameologists' spirits. Some of them simply speculated that there is an ongoing, blockbuster court proceeding -- all very, very, secret -- that will blow the lid off everything, once it is finally made public...

Back in the 1990s, the conservative philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife famously told the New York Times that the death of White House aide Vincent Foster was "the Rosetta Stone to the whole Clinton administration." Decipher it, and you understand everything. Today's Plameologists appear to believe something similar about the CIA-leak case. If it is just investigated enough, if someone can just get to the bottom of it, then all will be revealed. Who wouldn't get a little carried away by a scandal so immense, especially one with a petulant boy-king, a sneering gimp of a vice president, and a Machiavellian henchman? "I allowed myself to become totally obsessed by this story," Wheeler told the audience. "Probably more than is healthy."

Yes, Marcy, your obsession was more than was healthy. I'd say quite a bit more.

Speaking of unhealthy obsessions, Marc Ash, the proprietor of the Truthout.org (motto: We're outa truth at this org), has published an explanation for why their reporting is so different from all other news organizations. It appears that they have more faith in Fitzgerald than anyone else. They appear to be assuming that there was some kind of a deal between Rove's attorney, Luskin, and Fitzgerald. Here's what they seem to be saying might have happened, based on their formerly impeccable puppet-masters, I mean sources:

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.

Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.

And how have they confirmed that this speculation of what "appears...our sources told us" is a fact? They called Fitzgerald's office and received a "confirmation" in the following form:

For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment."

And that's good enough for the believers in the Rove-Plame-CIA-Leak story. Until they are proven wrong, they will continue to believe, in the absence of evidence, what they wish were true.