During the past week TO has published 2 stories by Jason Leopold. The first titled, "Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury" and the second, "Fitzgerald to Seek Indictment of Rove".
As is often the case when a big story breaks, heads turn and questions are asked. We expect and welcome that.
[]
As is always the case, I worked closely with Jason to confirm the key facts of these two latest stories. I would not have published the stories unless I had confirmation that the information was accurate. Yes, confirmation from multiple sources does exist.
The stories in question were not published lightly or with out considerable preparation. We are confident of the accuracy of the information we have published. I invite anyone with any additional or conflicting information to make that available to our editorial staff.
Stirling:
who wouldn't love to know who Jason's sources are? Let's hope we hear something tomorrow.The, not unusually, combative stance from Truthout comes on the heels of questions about Leopold's reporting, and the fear of a "bear trap" rumor being planted to "rat fuck" the liberal and internet press.
[]
The post from Ash exposes a fault line in the left side of the blogging and internet reporting world, one of many it should be added. In part this faultline is simple rivalry between news outlets - I don't think it is any secret that Raw Story and Truthout compete for readers and attention. In part it is concerns about Leopold personally - he's been accused of boorish behavior in the recent past. But in larger part this is rooted in a fear of media manipulation - in 2002, no one believed a stream of stories from the internet left that the march to Iraq was inevitable, and being driven by pre-determined policy. The Rathergate situation, where the White House seemed to confirm memos that were later discreditted, however, is the searing example. It probably helped Bush retain power that the most damaging accusations against him were pushed out of the limelight, even as the "swiftboating" entered the political lexicon for "slander and libel".
[]
My own impulse, and I told Marc this, is that if the sources have lied about this, then they are not sources and should be burned to the ground - if for no other reason than to protect the news organization and to remind sources that the reporter's protection of anonymity comes at a price - that price is honesty... Either future revelations will bear out what was reported, or they won't.
According to Marc Ash: "We told them we were going with a definitive statement... And they said 'yes'" - meaning confirming the direct assertion that Rove had received a target letter, and that any denial from Luskin is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst. He "expects developments this week" that will prove the facts reported by Leopold and Truthout.
[]
But I have to say this, Jason my man, if you are wrong about this one, there are people waiting to come down on you like a ton of bricks, and I don't mean from the right wing. And to the doubters, you might want to be as generous, privately, to him if he is right, as you are willing to be harsh if he is wrong.
4 comments:
Ok, I have to be officially skeptical of Leopold's story now.
If PJF did not meet with GJ yesterday, I fail to see how they could have delivered a true bill and sealed indictments. I don't think that his Washington deputies have the authority to do that.
Plus as Jane and Redd have pointed out over at FDL *numerous* times, this is a regular, standing Federal GJ. Meaning any DC US Atty can come in and present a case to them. So even if they did meet on Wed, they probably heard other cases entirely unrelated to the Plame matter.
I guess it's possible that PJF was tied up in Chicago yesterday with a case, and maybe his deputies could seek a true bill without him, but again, if we don't hear any announcement of a presser for tomorrow, Leopold'll have egg all over his face.
i'm not a leopold apologist - by any means -but i dont think he ever specifically said that this would happen tomorrow.
lets be fair
Ok, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I misread his article there, he said a presser was to be held "likely on a Friday afternoon", which I guess I took at first glance to mean "next Friday afternoon" meaning tomorrow.
That being said, though, his radio appearance on Tuesday (which I have only seen reported on dKos and here) said he was VERY CONFIDENT of a press conference announcement today. My take was he made it sound like Friday was the day. But of course I didn't hear the radio report, so I cannot independently verify this.
In any case, it seems unlikely that Fitz will be holding a presser tomorrow, as he will be in oral arguments in the Libby trial on Libby's 3rd motion to compel discovery. I guess it's possible he could be in court in the morning and holding a presser in the afternoon, but when exactly did the GJ indict?
In any case, I expect that if not tomorrow, May 12 will be D-day for Karl. Though I'll be kind of bummed if not tomorrow since I had May 5th in my prediction on dKos.
yeah - i wish jason was right - for his sake, and all of ours.
next week doesnt suit me at all!
Post a Comment