"I continue to believe that Jason's sources told him what he reported but that they were wrong. Was it a burn or just misinformation? I have no idea.'was someone being set up with information to see if it would end up with Jason?' - that's interesting. i'd break that into 2 questions - whether someone was set up thusly, and whether they were particularly interested in Jason.
If the information provided to Jason and Ash came from previously reliable informants who passed it along in good faith, then, as I said in my updated post on outing sources, there is probably too much legal liability and journalistic fallout for outing them.
[]
Fitz's silence means Rove skated. Jason's article was wrong, although well-intended. I'd rather know who and why Jason's sources were lied to. Was it an organized burn? Was someone being set up with information to see if it would end up with Jason?"
* leopold:
"Neither I nor the staff of Truthout believe we were lied to or knowingly led astray or manipulated or duped by our sources with regard to the specific details of my story."
* leopold:
" All the while I was just trying to report the truth. I suppose other reporters may have been skeptical of the information. And knowing what I know now I would have been much slower in my reporting. But I still would have reported this story all the same. I knew the risk.
Even the Thomas White story I wrote for Salon years ago which is now being referenced as an example of my credibility issues was eventually proven to be correct. It took two years and if you look at the Jeff Skilling indictment you will see that every element of my report on White was included in the Skilling indictment. But no one bothered to say that my reporting was in fact correct even though it took two years for the truth to come out.
It truly surprises me, however, that people would actually believe that I invented a story like this out of whole cloth. I don't understand that kind of thinking. Believe me, I've gotten stories wrong before. Big stories. Every journalist has. I am not unique. Look at Mike Isikoff of Newsweek. Still, in my case I feel like Job from the Bible. And I am not a religious man."
6 comments:
I disagree with Jeralyn and think Fitz is being silent for very different reasons. If Rove is going to "skate' it had better bein a very straight and narrow line when he takes the stand in the Libby trial.
Why would Luskin say he cannot comment because of a pending investigation? Either Rove is clear or he's not.
i gotta agree with yuo kathleen. btw - did you see the graphic of karl skating over at jeralyns?
classic
'was someone being set up with information to see if it would end up with Jason?' - that's interesting. i'd break that into 2 questions - whether someone was set up thusly, and whether they were particularly interested in Jason.
IMHO, there's a parallel to the Plame outing here. This administration is all about collateral damage.
CW says Plame was outed to discredit Wilson, but evidence suggests that there were many 'collateral' benefits to the administration as a result.
The question we should be asking is, if this Leopold thing was engineered, was he (and by extension, alternative media and the blogosphere) the target or collateral damage?
What if his sources were inside the DoJ? If so, and if they were fed misinformation as a test, and if Leopold outs them, suddenly BushCo has carte blanche to go housecleaning again.
It's pure speculation, but these arseholes have shown time and time again that they want us focussing on one thing while they're off fucking something else up. If they want the heat on Leopold, what don't they want us looking at?
A while back, in comments, our Anonymous insider asked:
Huh? Who removed Walton from the Edmunds case? I thought he was the assigning judge. That's very interesting.
In line with the last comment, is something unusual going on at the DoJ these days?
don: "CW says Plame was outed to discredit Wilson, but evidence suggests that there were many 'collateral' benefits to the administration as a result."
couldnt agree more.
don: "if this Leopold thing was engineered, was he (and by extension, alternative media and the blogosphere) the target or collateral damage?"
it's my sense that neither he nor leftblogistan was the target. that's way too elaborate AFAIC - not least because even having the buzz that Rove was about to be indicted floating around for 2 weeks is really bad press.
don: "is something unusual going on at the DoJ these days?"
let's hope so.
There is a Sealed vs Sealed indictment recorded in the Libby Case by Judge Reggie Walton, not in the Grand Jury hearings by Judge Thomas Hogan.
This is why I think people are confused and why I think Judge Walton gave Rove immunity to testify in the Libby Case because his answers would be self incriminating in the leak investigation. Luskin could spin this as exoneration without showing the letter from Fitz.
Post a Comment