Thursday, June 15, 2006

" I have to say I feel a little bit guilty about saying "Leopold Lied".

I was just venting the frustration many of us in the "reality-based" community felt. And many of us felt the need to take it out on someone. Leopold made an easy target to vent our collective frustration.

I do feel we need to take a bit of a step back and give Leopold a chance to explain himself. We should not "eat our own"; in general, we need to be more supportive of journalists in the alternative media; they will not always be right, and in general, they are doing the best that they can.

If Leopold did lie, I believe he will deserve everything he gets. But if he was misled by a source, we need to support him if/when he outs his source."
Indeed, on all counts.

I'd be really surprised if Leopold lied - I just don't see why he (or anyone) would do that. And of course, Marc Ash and Will Pitt apparently spoke to the sources as well. I'm sure glad I'm not any of them today. Mind you, it appears that either the sources lied, or they were mistaken - and I can't figure out why they would have lied, nor how they could have been mistaken.

It's all still a mystery.

(update: is there a scenario where the sources were acting in good faith?)


Don said...

On the topic of smearing Bush-critical media, similar to the little hubbub around the ABC manager who got smacked a couple of months back, another "months-old" e-mail has turned up.

The target: Olbermann

Remind me again how long the NSA's been monitoring web traffic? Or the FBI 'tapping' the media?

Kathleen said...

I think there is a scenario where Leopold and his sources were acting in good faith. I don 't know how Jeralyn can say that Rove testified with no 5th ammendment and no safety net. How would she know that?

If Rove was a reluctant witness and was claiming his 5th ammendment rights, and they were arguing different kinds of immunity, say during the 15 hour session, then Fitz could impose immunity on him and completely eliminate Rove's need to invoke his 5th ammendment rights. His status is unclear because it remains to be seen if he obstructs justice even with immunity. Just because Luskins says Rove's been cooperating doesn't mean it's so.

I think the threat of indictment was imminent and Fitz decided to grant Rove immunity even without Rove requesting it, to force him to testify or face obstruction charges. It's called imposed immunity. I love it.

lukery said...

don - that's a classic. i'm not sure if that's a smear. it might increase his appeal!

kathleen - lol - let's hope that fitz is that clever!

Kathleen said...

He is that clever, my friend, and twice as dedicated. Think about it. If Rove was cleared, wouldn't Fitz have held a press conference? His letter said he doesn't anticipate indicting Rove "at this time". This means he might consider it at a later date. Why would Sanborn refuse to comment on Rove's status, if he got an all clear? I think Fitz was forced to say something by Judge Walton in the Libby case because he wanted clarification on the investigation, most likely because Rove is going to have to testify and if he's constantly taking the 5th, it'll obstruct the trial.

Take heart, Rove's a small fry in this scheme.