Marc Ash, editor of Truthout, the publication for which Jason Leopold writes, has a detailed new article about what their sources told them regarding Karl Rove's purported Indictment and about activity Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, lawyers for Karl Rove. [Added: Truthout servers are now overloaded, probably due to a link from Drudge. I have temporarily reposted today's article at the bottom of this post.]

I have just gotten off the phone with Karl Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, who provided me with his response to the below quoted portions of the article. (He was at an event making cotton candy with his kids and only saw my email with the quotes, not the entire article.)

First, the Truthout article: Not only is Truthout not backing down, they are flat-out calling Rove spokesman Marc Corallo and Rove Lawyer Robert Luskin's denial false.

Truthout adds a new twist: Rove "may" be cooperating and becoming a witness for Fitzgerald and Cheney may be in Fitzgerald's cross-hairs.

Tim Grieves at Salon does an excellent job today interviewing Marc Ash at Truthout about why he only issued a partial apology for Jason Leopold's article last Saturday stating sources had told him Rove had been indicted.

Marc's partial apology stated:

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.

The New York Daily News reports today that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage may be a key witness for the Government in the case against Scooter Libby and may have incriminating evidence against Karl Rove.

Raw Story adds:

The Daily News' story comes just a day after a post by Washington insider Steve Clemons and coverage by RAW STORY which signaled that Armitage's role in the CIA leak investigation had been understated. According to Clemons, Armitage testified three times before the grand jury.

Bump and Update: This just in from Karl Rove spokesman Mark Corallo [via e-mail in response to a question I e-mailed him]:

Nothing going on. I was told by several journalists who were down at the courthouse that the Grand Jury was not meeting today. Of course, the GJ may be meeting at the undisclosed location (as VP Cheney is out of town and not using it today...)

Thanks, Mark!

Update: Truthout Executive Director Mark Ash issues a "partial apology" regarding Jason Leopold's Saturday article.

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.

Several people wrote me yesterday asking why I wasn't covering The Washington Note's report that Bobby Ray Inman suggested Richard Armitage was in criminal jeopardy in the Valerie Plame investigation. The short answer is I don't believe it. I have believed for months that it is Armitage whom Patrick Fitzgerald refers to in Libby pleadings as "an innocent accused." Which to me means that he got immunity for his cooperation with Fitzgerald.

The Washington Note today updates and acknowledges Bobby Ray Inman was wrong. New sources provide opposite information on Armitage, i.e., he's been helping Fitzgerald.

That's the self-correcting nature of the blogosphere at work. Good for Steve.

While we wait....From Byron York at The Corner, debunking Wayne Madsen's report last night that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met with the grand jury on Friday, May 12, where he was given a preview of the Karl Rove indictment so he could tell the White House. (Background here.)

First, a Justice Department source, speaking on background, says that Alberto Gonzales did not go to the courthouse on Friday, May 12.

Second, Gonzales, like his predecessor John Ashcroft, has recused himself from the CIA leak investigation. Gonzales, as White House counsel, had taken part in the White House's response to the Justice Department in the early days of the probe. When he became attorney general, there was no doubt that he would have to recuse himself from the matter. He was asked about it during a press conference in October 2005, when there was great anticipation that indictments were coming in the CIA leak affair, and this is what he had to say:

York quotes from the press conference:

Wayne Madsen, whom I have not read previously, is reporting there will be an announcement of Karl Rove's indictment Friday. His story somewhat tracks Jason's Leopold's article, except he says the meeting at Luskin's office Friday was not for 15 hours, Rove wasn't given 24 hours to get his affairs in order and he adds that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met with the grand jury on May 12 and was advised by them that Rove would be indicted.

WMR can report tonight on more details concerning the confusing reports regarding Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from last Friday. WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice.

According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove.

Bump and Update: Mark Ash of Truthout, like me, received denials from Mark Corallo and Bob Luskin. Ash, however, this afternoon writes he is sticking with Jason's story, saying Truthout has picked up additional sources.

************
Original Post:

Update: Mark Corallo has responded. I've added it to the end of the post.

Beleaguered investigative reporter Jason Leopold was on the Ed Schultz radio show yesterday, defending his Truthout article that Karl Rove has been indicted. He sounds very confident. You can listen here.

Jason told Schultz that on Saturday he got a phone call from his sources telling him that the action Friday was not at the courthouse, but at Patton Boggs. They provided an extraordinary level of detail about what took place at the law firm.

Jason is continuing to receive new details. He said that yesterday, he was told that the entire 4th floor of Patton Boggs was locked down for the marathon meeting. He reiterated his prior information, that Rove was there with his secret service detail, that plea negotiations were going on which ultimately were rejected outright, after which he was given an envelope containing the Indictment and told he had 24 hours to get his affairs in order.

Christy at Firedoglake is on Rove Indictment Watch. She's also reporting on what the media is covering today -- Nicole Kidman is engaged and Paul McCartney and his wife are splitting up, blaming the media for the their problems. Are they on Brangelina baby watch too?

Keep checking Christy.

Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, has officially denied the allegations in Jason Leopold's article reporting Rove has been indicted and that there was a Fitzgerald-Luskin meeting on Friday.

I received the denial directly from Robert Luskin this afternoon.

1. Luskin stands by his April 26 statement in its entirety.

2. Karl Rove's status has not changed. They remain confident Fitzgerald will decline to bring any charges.

3. There is "no truth whatsoever" to any of Jason Leopold's recent stories about Karl Rove's resignation, the alleged meeting in his office or the Indictment. The denial he gave me Saturday night was and was intended to be "all purpose."

4. As far as he knows, Patrick Fitzgerald was in Chicago on Friday.

5. People should not interpret their "unwillingness to comment on every wild and malicious rumor as a change in position."

Think Progress reports that Karl Rove gave a lecture this morning at American Enterprise Institute. During the Q and A, reporter David Corn asked him why he denied to Scott McClellan that he was involved in the Valerie Plame leaks probe. Video is here.

From the transcript:

CORN: David Corn from "The Nation Magazine" on a different subject. Scott McClellan told the White House press corps, many who are here today, that he had spoken to you and you were not involved in the CIA leak. Can you explain why the American public, almost two and a half years later, hasn't been given an explanation and don't you think it deserves one for that misinformation because it does seem you were to some degree, though maybe disputed, involved in that leak?

ROVE: My attorney Mr. Luskin made a statement on April 26th. I refer to you that statement. I have nothing more to add to it. Nice try, though.

Karl Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, called me at 8:20 a.m. Mountain Time today. He said someone had read him my post over the phone about my conversation with Jason Leopold (and he had picked up my voice-mail from Saturday night) and he wanted to respond. Here is Mr. Corallo's version:

1. He has never spoken with someone identifying himself as "Jason Leopold." He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday along the lines I described, but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the Londay Sunday Times. The calls were to his home number. At one point during their last conversation, he offered to call Joel back, and was given a cell phone number that began with 917. When he called the number back, it turned out not to be be a number for Joel.

2. Josh Gerstein and Byron York called him, not the other way around.

3. There was no meeting or communication between Luskin and Fitzgerald on Friday. Bob was not in the office on Friday at all. He was home, taking care of a sick cat.

4. Karl Rove did not tell the President he would resign.