Monday, May 15, 2006

Rove, Hatfield, Leopold?

Possibly bad news for Leopold (though I trust Leopold more than Byron York):

“I talked with Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo, who told me the story was completely baseless.  Part of our conversation:


Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?
No.
Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday?
No.
Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?
No.
Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted?
No.


So there seems to be nothing to the story, certainly nothing which any other reporter has seen fit to report.  Which raises a question: What is going on here? The journalists who checked out the story, quite properly, did not repeat Leopold's bad information.  But for some media blogger out there, it might be reasonable to ask: Where are these reports coming from?”

I don’t want to dump all over Leopold, as, unlike everybody else, he seems to be trying.  On the other hand, his background makes him, exactly like James Hatfield, an excellent target for Rovean disinformation.  The Rove pattern is to pick somebody with an iffy history to spread rumors about a touchy topic, rumors which have a basis in truth but which are technically wrong, and then use the character of the person reporting the rumors to deflect attention from the real issues.  They used the same method in dealing with Bush’s military service, or lack thereof.

0 comments: