look, i would have loved to see rove indicted too. and yes, this doesn't mean that the fitzgerald investigation is over, it just scratches one name off of the list of possible defendants. admittedly one of the juiciest names of possible suspects, but it's still only one name.
nevertheless, some people out there are hanging onto the hopes that a rove indictment is still coming 'round the bend. truthout seems to be the worst example. a month or so ago, truthout reported that rove had been indicted and that an official announcement was imminent. others picked it up and started crowing. except that the announcement never came, and one-by-one the crowers stopped crowing. truthout, however, continued to stick with it's story, long after everyone else had given up.
most surprisingly is the fact that truthout continues to claim that rove has been indicted even today:
I reached Truthout editor Marc Ash on his cel [sic] phone this morning. "I wasn't aware that he had said that," he said of Luskin's announcement, but insisted that Truthout was "absolutely" standing by its earlier reporting.i don't know who ash's sources are or what they're telling him, but he's completely wrong that luskin lying would be in his client's best interest. maybe it would in the short term, but not in the long term. if luskin made today's story up, and made national headlines saying that rove was in the clear when, in fact, he had been indicted, it would only make rove look like more of the conniving genius he's often made out to be. and if he's going to be facing a criminal jury , that impression would definitely not be in his best interests.
"We've done a lot of work on this story, we've talked to a lot of people," he said, "and some of the people who provided information for the story are absolutely in a position to know."
So if Truthout's reporting -- by correspondent Jason Leopold -- is correct, is Ruskin [sic] lying? "Robert Luskin's allegations are in the best interest of his client, not necessarily the press," Ash said. "I think that the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have."
contrary to ash's claims, luskin really doesn't have an incentive to give an outright lie to the media about this. which means he's probably telling the truth. now maybe it's to his advantage to spin the truth a bit, he could be doing that. maybe rove has agreed to testify against someone else in exchange for not being indicted. luskin wouldn't be lying if that were true. but i really don't think he's out-and-out lying here. it's a lot more apparent that truthout's source is no good. and the fact that truthout sticks with its source even when reality has moved forward, doesn't speak all that well about truthout's credibility.
