Reply #170: Sounds like

[Marie26]

an interesting site. But there's nothing there that says anything definitive about this "sealed v. sealed" indictment. If this is true, why couldn't she confirm that it was filed in DC district court, & that the cite actually goes to the named case? It doesn't look like there was much to be found.

For her article, she interviews Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo - he calls Truthout's newest claims "demonstrably false," stating "They are "utter lies. There is not a shred of truth to them." He denies that Rove's attorneys ever had a meeting w/Fitzgerald at Patton Boggs, says they never discussed a plea, says that Patton Boggs is not a source, and finally, states definitively that Rove has not been indicted and has not received a target letter. The worst part is the last response - Corrallo passed along Mark Ash's name to reporter Howard Kurtz because "he knew that Kurtz was writing a story about how, in Corallo's words, the mainstream media had to "follow up on the lunacy and these frauds who are passing themselves off as legitimate journalists." The article makes Truthout look pretty bad. And yeah, it's Rove's spokesman, but it still says alot that the person who's in a position to know is steadfastly denying, even making fun of, these allegations.

Then, she's asked about the allegation that Gonzales somehow sealed the Rove indictment after it was issued (thus, Sealed v. Sealed), and responds "I think this kind of speculation is hurtful to both sides. I give it less weight than a rumor." That sounds like a pretty good policy.