Larisa: Leopold is solid

Larisa tells me that "Jason is solid on this" - and that I "can use that on the record"
(update - see below)

jeralyn:

Update: Here's another scenario if Jason's article is accurate, and it's just my speculation as to how this could have played out:

The grand jury indicts Karl Rove Wednesday. On Friday, Fitz meets with Luskin to offer a final plea deal. He tells Luskin what the charges are, but does not provide a copy of the actual Indictment. They haggle and haggle but can't come to a final resolution. Fitz gives his final offer, and tells Luskin either he takes the plea by a certain time over the weekend, or the Indictment is unsealed Monday morning and Rove needs to make arrangements to surrender. Fitzgerald then leaves.

Luskin, Rove and other members of Team Rove then spend many hours, perhaps well into the early morning hours of Saturday (hence Jason's 15 hour statement), debating what Rove should do. Rove finally decides to decline the offer, either not willing either to admit to certain facts or believing that some of the charges in the Indictment are unfair and legally unsupportable.

One question I have is whether Fitz would actually deliver a copy of the Indictment to Luskin in advance of its unsealing in Court. If it's sealed, it seems to me he can't share it. He could, howver, hand over a paper with a list of charges -- or a draft of a proposed plea agreement that contains the charges Rove must plead to to get a deal.

Luskin has always maintained that Rove has cooperated fully with Fitz' investigation. I continue to believe a 5k (sentence reduction for cooperation) has been made available to Rove. It may just be the amount of Fitz' proposed reductionRove won't accept -- in other words, it's not enough to get him out of a prison sentence."

update - received from larisa

"What I mean by "jason is solid" is that I found his previous reporting to be on target and so there is no reason to doubt this and especially using the rumor mill claiming he reported things in the past which he did not. There are people on the left who are either so worried about their own agenda or are not remotely of the left - despite playing the part - that they are willing to use rumor to destroy the few credible
reporters we have left. As such, rumors have been put forth stating that things were reported by Jason and turned out to be false that in fact were never reported by Jason to begin with. Have I been able to independently confirm his latest report? No. Does that mean it is wrong? No. I have been knee deep in Iran stories for the past few months and so it makes sense that I would not be aggressively chasing this to where I could get enough confirmation for an article. Jason has been knee deep in this - in actual reporting, not creating pretty summaries that others then trot out as news - and so he would have access to more sources, enough to confirm something of this nature. Now people can sit back and wait, then make their comments or they can jump on to discredit Jason before they know if what they are attempting to discredit is true or false. But this attack first, wait for confirmation later, approach is not remotely a progressive ideal and reminds me of the very dirty tricks the RNC is so famous for. I would ask the question about the motives of the people so aggressivly attempting to discredit this story before there has been time for others to confirm or declare it false. I would ask if some of these people don't have their own little agenda issues (and as you and many others as well know, per our discussions, there are) or if some of these people are not really attempting to pre-empt something by discrediting the messenger. The left deserves the press it has now because it failed to defend the press that it now wants and continues to attack the press that it wants and complain about the press that it has.

When I reported on Valerie Plame's team - as part of Brewster Jennings (not BJ proper) was tracking prolifiration via Iran, for some reason some on the left thought it important to attack me. They cited the very press that they hate as not having reported this and would not believe the story until the press that they criticize so often would report that. Yet when three months later, the MSM did report it, these very same people did not issue an apology to me. Why do you suppose that is?
Do you think it is because they really care about truth that they would attack me, yet fail to acknowledge truth when I am proved right? No, these people (again, you know - per our conversations - the few that I point directly to) either have their own self-centered agenda that has nothing to do with truth and/or ethics OR these people are Segretti plants sent in to discredit the messenger.

So here is my suggestion for the public to identify who these culprits are, no matter which perverse category they fall into: sit back and wait for confirmation of Jason's story or should it be wrong, then wait for that to be proved. You need not post the story if you find it suspect or post it if you find it credible. That is simple. The people left on attack mode are the people who are so petty that they are willing to destroy anything and everyone for their own personal agenda or they are simply Segretti whores. In the end, there is no difference who a whore takes money from, does it? Is she/he not providing the same service regardless? So those really interested in a free press, be patient and wait for the story to be confirmed or discredited. Those interested in something not remotely related to truth, well, feel free to go about your destructive ways."