Jason Leopold Speaks .....

[Trajan]

From Stevenleser : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1195872

Jason Leopold update on Rove Indictment Story

by Rob Kall

http://www.opednews.com

As editor of OpEdnews, I started wondering when Jason Leopold's news that Karl Rove was indicted, which we made our main headline, did not show up in the mainstream news. He's been superbly reliable and great and bringing news ahead of others. So I wrote to him:

I’m getting emails asking why the mainstream media aren’t reporting on Rove’s indictment. And now, one of my Trusted Authors has written this article

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060515_karl_rove_indictment.htm

Any word you can give me on what’s up?

Rob Kall


Jason replied,

Rob

I have now been turned into the story—again. Robert Luskin and Mark Corallo, Rove’s attorney and spokesman, are liars. Damned liars. I have five sources on this. In the news business when you want to discredit a reporter and an explosive report you call the spokesman and get him to issue a denial. My reports have gone way beyond the spokesman and the lawyer to get to the truth. I am SHOCKED that the mainstream have followed this up by simply calling a spokesman.

Best

Jason Leopold

I responded to Jason, "Can I post this on our site? Or, do you want to write something on this?"

He replied,

You can add this:

I am amazed that the blogosphere would lend credence to the statements of people who have consistently lied about Rove’s role in this case. This is a White House that denied Rove’s involvement in the leak. This is a White House that has lied and lied and lied. And yet the first question that people ask is “why would Rove’s spokesman lie?” Because they can, because they do, and because they have. This is an administration that has attacked and discredited their detractors. I am amazed that not a single reporter would actually do any real investigative work and get to the bottom of this story. Surely, their must be another intrepid reporter out there that has sources beyond a spokesman.

Jason Leopold
Reporter
TruthOut.org

So ..... Karl Rove and his spokesmen are liars ? ...

I had no idea .....

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Make. Announce. Type. n/t

MKJ

[janx]

3. YEP. n/t

[Sammy Pepys]

2. I'll believe it when it happens.....n/t

.....

[ginnyinWI]

4. I believe you, Jason. n/t

[AuntiBush]

45. I do too!

Can anyone say a possible "sealed" indictment? I mean, come on with people like KKKRove and this * adm. For Pete's sake.

[GOTV]

5. I don't understand....

... is their contention that Rove has been (past tense) indicted but they're keeping it a secret?

Would that be possible?

[Dora]

7. Yes, if it's a sealed indictment. b/t

[GOTV]

15. If it's sealed...

... could it be that they (Rove and company) cannot confirm it?

[Dora]

28. I don't know for sure but I doubt it.

Just sharing what little I've learned. It's my understanding that a sealed indictment is kept sealed from the public, not from the indicted. This would make sense in light of the rumors that Rove has informed Bush and the rest of the Cabinet that he has been indicted and will announce his resignation when the indictment is public.

I think wikipedia.org has an entry on "sealed indictment"

[DesertRat]

38. For how long can an indictment be sealed?

[benburch]

9. Entirely.

They can keep such a thing secret for a variety of reasons.

[GOTV]

17. Wouldn't it be more likely...

... that the reporter was played? I mean look at what happened to Rather.

[benburch]

31. Could be.

But I doubt it.

It would take a conspiracy of five sources.

[GOTV]

43. No. It actually wouldn't take that.

The 5 sources could be telling the truth as far as they know. It would only take one person, a person who would be on the inside track, say, Rove's Lawyer, to start the rumor. He either tells those 5 people himself or he tells less than 5 but the rumor spreads to the other 5.

Goal? To discredit the media and innoculate the public.

I still think it's a long shot but it wouldn't take 5 people to be in on the deception.

[Igel]

48. I had a boss go after me

once--he didn't much like me. I worked for a church. A conversation made my life hell.

The conversation took place at an apt. Two twin sisters lived there, call them Annie and Sandy. A friend and I were over for potluck dinner and bridge. Four people, total. My friend wasn't one of the witnesses. So the twins morphed into 6 eyewitnesses. Except that the twins were using the bathrooms when my friend and I were talking about the crappy backup procedures the church had for its records-- the computers were left on and unattended at times when church members were there, no backups kept, and "it would be easy to delete all the church's records." One heard the last couple of lines of the conversation. The other missed it entirely.

So one witness to the end of the conversation turned into 6 independent witnesses.

For fun, after my boss reamed me out with the other ministers present, I asked the actual witness, 'Annie,' why she said what she said. Sandy was there and defended Annie, saying she heard every word of it. Annie said Sandy couldn't have, she wasn't in the dining room at the time. Sandy said it happened in the living room, and gave a detailed accounting of the entire conversation--most of it, except for the last line or two, fictitious. Their brother, also one of the witnesses came over and said Sandy was right, it was in the living room, he was there and heard it, too. Both twins said he wasn't there. He offered details ... like Sandy's. Why would Sandy lie about being there to the source of all her information? And why would their brother lie to the only witness and to his information source? Because they heard the rumor, started by Annie, and wanted so much to be important--information in small networks is often prestige--that they created false memories.

Six independent witnesses. All of whom, it turned out, were buddies or close siblings and had discussed the events in detail. I can't say they lied, either. They sincerely believed what they said was true; they were wrong (Annie) and semi-delusional (the rest).

The guy I actually had the conversation with was the son of a junior minister. His father called him at school to ask him about it, and he said what happened. His 'testimony' was overruled by the other six witnesses, apparently. When the ministers ganged up on me and asked me what happened, that junior minister looked sick: my account and his son's matched. But it was six 'independent witnesses' against two 'friends', apparently.

I've seen other situations like this where witnesses proliferated and the cheesy 'investigation' didn't focus on proving the witnesses wrong, but so wanted them to be right that they were accepted at face value. Uncritical thinking, multiple sources ... blah.

My point isn't that Leopold's necessarily wrong. He might be correct; I doubt it, the story's got a few problems, but if those bits are wrong the story could still be valid overall. My point is that his five (or three, whichever) independent sources may not be as independent as they claim, and may not be valid sources. An investigative reporter would confront his sources; I'm not sure Leopold did. And, contra majority opinion, they may well not be lying, just wrong or self-deceived.

[havocmom]

32. Could one reason be that plea bargaining might be going on

so indicted person might be persuaded to give evidence against bigger fish?

A girl can only hope...

[benburch]

34. Exactly. nt

[onenote]

54. then why not report that

presumably the high level sources would know that and it would be pretty darn newsworthy. The silence is telling, imo.

onenote

[havocmom]

57. In real life, unlike on anonymous discussion boards,

one does not tip one's had to the opponent.

Actually, all the impatient whining is telling, imo.

[CabalPowered]

20. A sealed indictment would do just that

which is a win-win. The silence could mean that Rove got caught lying and the main investigation contintues, which includes him as a possible witness or guilty party. If I was to speculate, I'd say Rove was offered a bargin of sorts in exchange for cooperation in regards to the leak itself. If that was the case and the indictment was sealed then that means Rove is playing ball, I think...? :shrug:

[Inland]

6. Leopold entirely misses the point.

The point is NOT whether Rove's Spokesman can be believed. It's whether Leopold's sources, or his conclusions drawn from those sources, can be believed, and even then, how much energy you want to expend on the entire matter which will resolve itself in a day or two, or not.

I've already posted that the only people who really know what's going on with the GJ are the GJ and Fitz's office, and it's really doubtful Leopold is scooping by way of a leak from THOSE folks, committing a felony in the process. I mean, we already saw Fitz put a couple of journalists in jail. If there's any story that is not capable of being scooped, it's this one. Leopold and we should be more careful. Just saying.

Be skeptical and wait and just forget about it. It's in good Fitzgerald hands.

[benburch]

11. Yes, of course, five sources can all be wrong.

But the odds are...

[Inland]

18. Also missing the point.

I'm not saying they are wrong. Or that Leopold is wrong.

Unless somebody has had the balls to commit a felony in order to give Jason Leopold a two day head start on the rest of the world, the sources are people who have an incentive to lie or are reading tea leaves just like everyone else.

They could be great guessers, for all I know. But I'm not putting a shitload of energy into someone's guesses, and maybe Leopold should do the same. But it's not my career that's going to be made with a scoop, one way or another, so we have different incentives, I guess.

[benburch]

30. I hope there are LOTS of sources willing to commit felonies.

Don't you?

[Inland]

44. Uh....no. Not a huge fan of felonies, in general,

and the concept of people committing felonies in revealing gj proceedings so that we can have a two day or two month advance notice of an indictment strikes me as frivolous at best and contrary to the concept of civil liberties at worst.

Maybe you meant something other than the grand jury proceedings, though. Sure hope so.

[pberq]

55. What about Daniel Ellsberg?

Suppose Ellsberg hadn't taken that huge personal risk when he released the Pentagon Papers?

Don't we want people with inside knowledge of the criminal behavior of this administration getting that out?

[Inland]

56. So that's not talking about the fitz grand jury.

Unless you think the grand jury is practicing criminal behavior, the release of any information on its proceedings is a felony that helps nobody and harms the civil liberties of everyone affected by the investigation.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

12. Why is it even a question?

Of course rove's spokeswhore is a liar.

[spooky3]

16. good post. Also, I think you meant your first "is" to be "isn't."

right?

[Inland]

19. You are right, thanks, edited. nt

[caledesi]

21. FIVE sources? Can they all be wrong? Cautiously optimistic.

[Igel]

49. Yes.

And sincerely so.

[Seabiscuit]

52. "Five Sources"??? Leopold claimed *SEVEN* sources in his article.

Five from inside the administration and two inside the RNC.

No one on DU is giving credence to the two Rove mouthpieces. That's not the cause for doubt on this blog.

The cause for doubt here is contained in Leopold's own article, which (1) says Rove *has been* indicted, and that Rove's indictment is "imminent"; (2) says Fitzgerald spent 15 hours in Luskin's law office Friday, and also says he spent "more than half a day" there; (3) says Fitzgerald told Luskin Friday that Rove has "24 hours" to get his affairs in order, and then, together with Will Pitt, despite whatever his sources supposedly told him changes his story to read "24 business hours" (3 days). Sorry, but that kind of writing just doesn't pass the smell test.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

8. Why is it even a question after all these years.

Anything Rove and Co say is a lie.

The minute the spokeswhore spoke I knew the indictment was in the can.

It's way past time for the "big guns" in the liberal blogsphere to back Leopold.

[emulatorloo]

10. “why would Rove’s spokesman lie?” Because they can, because they do, and

because they have . . .


===================


No truer words were spoken.

[AuntiBush]

46. Because 1 Lie leads to Another Lie, and Another Lie...

so on and so forth. Why would Rove's lawyers and spokes-folks speak truth now? That in itself is absolutely hysterical.

[boobooday]

13. I think it makes sense they would deny it

As long as possible.

And every time the issue comes up, the MSM goes running to Luskin. They don't want to confirm this, at least not until after chimpy's desperation speech tonight.

[LA lady]

14. not good.

I think Leopold is being played by Rove's group to destroy his credibility

[caledesi]

23. Don't give Rove that much credit. Why should he care about

Jason Leopold...some Internet person just "putting out rumors." :sarcasm:

Rove has more issues to worry about.

[brentspeak]

22. It's looking more and more that Jason and truthout are full of shhhh...

....aaaaving cream,
be nice and clean.
Shave everyday and you'll always look keen!

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Good reply.

Even if Mr. Leopold is wrong, he came by his information honestly. And he's right. We have no reason to believe the people issuing the denials.

[spindrifter]

25. Why would the sources lie?

They are on the other side, after all. I'm sure that they may feel that it is very satisfying to watch how far the other side will go in its glee over the news. They can always say "gotcha," to Leopold and point out that he did not check his sources carefully enough.

I'm hoping for the indictments' I'm hoping Jason Leopold didn't get burned or burn anyone else.

But all I can do is wait and see what turns up.

[Virginian]

26. He will out his sources if they lied to him.

I read that on an earlier post.

[spindrifter]

35. I doubt that that would be a strong position

to take unless he has some extrinsic evidence. Their first line of defense is -- I didn't say it. The second is, you misunderstood/misinterpreted what was said.
We can speculate till the perches are all 8 lbs., but in the long run everyone has to wait and see how the story plays out.

[mtnsnake]

58. Did he say when he'd out them?

I missed that post you're speaking of.

[Igel]

50. Vanity, perhaps?

Ego?

I've seen people 'lie', completely convinced they were telling the truth, for no other reason than to either show they have information (which means they're insiders, or in the know), or because they're part of some petty inside struggle. A few times they give the information they know and were cajoled into saying more; by the time they were confronted, they believed they were telling the truth. It's not that hard to convince yourself that something false is true.

Not all WH staffers like Rove; I'm betting he stepped on a few toes along the way.

[global1]

27. Has Anybody Considered That This Leak of A Rove Indictment Came....

from Fitz or his team. Maybe - Fitz is trying to put the heat on the Rove/Cheney relationship. Maybe he's trying to get someone to crack and confess. Just a thought.

[Dora]

29. Fitz isn't a leaker. n/t

[havocmom]

33. Fitz & his team would be fools to leak it. They don't strike me as fools.

They go after all sorts of really bad guys. They are good at it. Doubt they would screw up like that.

[Festivito]

36. Am I missing something? If 5 lie, what impact TO THE 5?

Will these five being outed be an interesting story?

Or,
Does the GOP earn a Hillary slam for having had it mentioned at a fundraiser?
Do they get a Truthout.com whipping fest?
Do they win an internet blog credibility hit?
Do they keep their hold on established media outlets: papers, radio, TV,...?

If wrong, I hope the ensuing story is worth the cost?

ON EDIT: ADD: I've noticed some interesting DUers responding to this issue elsewhere, fanning it. Particular DUers who have given me illogic on various issues. (Of course, I will not name them or call them out.)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

37. This story, more than anything else I've seen in my 2 years here, is

bringing out some very interesting responses.

Certainly we can be a little skeptical, however, the sort of wierd "pretzel" logic employed by some posters is a revelation.

Agree w/you. MKJ

[IndianaGreen]

39. Salon.com's Response to Jason Leopold & His Reply

Leopold's answer to Salon is also posted following this article at the link provided.

Salon.com's Response to Jason Leopold & His Reply

Saturday, 12 October 2002, 1:50 pm
Article: The Scoop Editor

EDITOR'S NOTE: Following is a Salon.com editor's response to Jason Leopold's “Shafted By The New York Times” and a response to this from Leopold.
*******************

Salon.com's Response To Jason Leopold's Account Of The Tom White Story Deletion

Salon decided to remove freelancer Jason Leopold's Aug. 29, 2002 story about Thomas White and Enron from its site at the end of a two-week-long investigation. At the time we made that decision we felt that it spoke for itself and did not think reporting every detail served any purpose. Now, Leopold has distributed an account of the events that led up to our decision that is riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and that omits the most important factors behind Salon's decision to take down his story -- factors that relate to his own credibility. Salon now has no choice but to respond and set the record straight.

Before we started working with Leopold, we spoke to journalists who had worked with him at Dow Jones Newswires and other publications, and they all praised his work. None told us about the significant corrections Dow Jones had had to make on Leopold's reporting that were later cited in a New York Times story about this matter.

Our initial review of Leopold's White story included detailed verification of many of the documents Leopold alludes to relating to Enron Energy Services' Lilly and Quaker Oats deals. Nothing in our review then or thereafter has raised questions about the authenticity of those documents or the accuracy of Leopold's reporting of them.

However, no Salon editor actually saw, before publication, the e-mail mentioned in the story -- purportedly from Thomas White to a colleague, reading "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q." We recognize now that this was a mistake, and we regret it.

On Sept. 17, an editor at the Financial Times contacted Salon and expressed concern that some material in Leopold's story might have been plagiarized from an article that ran in his newspaper on Feb. 4, 2002. This was a serious charge and we investigated it quickly and carefully. It turned out that, indeed, Leopold had used seven full paragraphs amounting to 480 words, virtually verbatim, from the FT. There were two attributions to the FT within the passage, but they appeared to apply only to the specific sentences that contained them, not to the full passage.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

[robbedvoter]

42. So, Jason was right and Salon was wrong - admission! Thanks!

"However, no Salon editor actually saw, before publication, the e-mail mentioned in the story -- purportedly from Thomas White to a colleague, reading "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q." We recognize now that this was a mistake, and we regret it."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

[Igel]

51. That's not the clear import of those two paragraphs.

'Our initial review of Leopold's White story included detailed verification of many of the documents Leopold alludes to relating to Enron Energy Services' Lilly and Quaker Oats deals. Nothing in our review then or thereafter has raised questions about the authenticity of those documents or the accuracy of Leopold's reporting of them.

'However, no Salon editor actually saw, before publication, the e-mail mentioned in the story -- purportedly from Thomas White to a colleague, reading "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q." We recognize now that this was a mistake, and we regret it.'

They looked at many of the documents; they stand by their evaluation of them. *BUT* they didn't look at the e-mail Leopold cited, didn't evaluate it, and do not stand by its authenticity or Leopold's reporting of it. Not looking at that e-mail was a mistake, and they regret it.

The 'however' is important, and rules of construal constrain what 'this' can plausibly refer to.

[robbedvoter]

40. Leopold has my trust over the others. Will still have it even if played.

Wait and see.
In the meanwhile, the attacks are unwarranted. As someone says "came by the story honestly"
All I ask from an investigative reporter.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Maybe there is a "wait" going on while "they" figure how to "manage"

this news. Wouldn't be surprised. Giving those who need to be a script a heads up, while the public stays unaware.

Lying "well" isn't easy, ya know!

[onenote]

53. so do you think fitz is part of the plot?

Do you think he is intentionally helping them figure out how to manage the news by sitting on indictments previously handed down? If not (and I don't think he is) then doesn't that undercut your explanation?


onenote

[PATRICK]

47. Also predicted and well underway

the talking point will be when Rove is indicted that "bloggers"(ignoring leopold as a reporter and whether the indictment story was valid) can outrace the news by predicting something ahead of time without facts then take credit for any successes. That has already been said by the WSJ and since the "deadline" for the announcement has passed whether by days or hours, that typical shrug off can safely continue.

The opposite is true. The MSM shrugs off the unfavorable news on strictly WH/corporate criteria and by condemning anyone who dares do the job can deny access and credit ANYTIME the bloggers and rogue reporters are correct- even when they use them as sources- at their convenience. The WSJ is living in a very big glass house tied to market fortunes. It would have behooved them to be more neutral and uninvolved in lies and crediibility issues.