How much time to give Leopold's scoop?

[quinnox]

I read yesterday that wednesday would be the deadline, and now I'm seeing Thursday being mentioned and also the end of the week. What's next, a couple of weeks or months?

Will there be a point where it can safely be declared the story was either a mistake or a fraud?

Or, if Rove is indicted say a month from now, will Leopold be given credit, even if the time frame was off?

[Inland]

1. It took me about three minutes to read it.

That's how long I gave it.

All the rest has been debating the wisdom of it and whether accuracy matters.

[MADem]

15. Indeed.

I'm a fan of accuracy, myself. Nothing wrong with hedging, or even admitting error if a mistake was made--that CAN happen if someone isn't truthful with one, and without fault to the person making the initial reports. But I am not a fan of the surreptitious moving of the goalposts without acknowledging what's been done. That's what the administration does, and they've gotten away with it far too many times!

[Inland]

18. It's a troubling development.

Not the article, but the "defenses" of it.

If we want it to be true, if it comes from someone in our camp, then there seem to be plenty who are in a hurry to get past the issue of whether its true or even important.

[MADem]

25. Agreed.

I wouldn't have had any difficulty with a retraction, a qualification that this is strong rumor, or single-sourced, or whatever, or even an explanation after the fact with regard to the questions about the timing. It's the "moving the bar" that is bothersome.

[elfin]

2. One week from today - and then I fold

Any later and it's not a "scoop". Am hoping that delay is due to Plea bargaining and detail wrapping - for two more GJ meets after today. (Fri and next Wednesday).

[JuniperLea]

8. How is it not still a scoop?

Scoop means you are the first to report it!


Jeez.


I can't believe I let myself get sucked into this.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

36. If you reported that the indictment already occurred (past tense), and it

happens in the future, you were not the first to report "it". In fact, what you reported never happened at all.

[JuniperLea]

38. Hahaha! Ok, whatever.

I'm not into splitting hairs.

[No Exit]

34. Here's something which I consider bad news:

about Jason Leopold. Let's just say, this article does not give me confidence.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/

But Jason Leopold aside, I am supremely confident that Fat Ass Karl will be indicted. In fact, if Fat Ass is NOT indicted, I will firmly believe that the fix is in. And IMO, being found to have the fix in will be almost as bad for the foundering repuke party as would Fat Ass's indictment. No--there ain't no bad ending to the story of Karl's legal troubles!:)

[MrModerate]

3. The air is leaking out . . .

The story was so specific on the details that, if true, it would certainly have broken by now. I have to conclude it was largely (or perhaps completely) false.

[lancdem]

4. I read earlier today on Talk Left

that Leopold said Sunday that a press conference would come after Tuesday. It's only Tuesday now.

[texasleo]

5. time's up

[JuniperLea]

6. OH.GOOD.GOD

WTF??? Who really cares to whom credit is given? Why all the impatience on this issue? It's a no brainer that the misadministration is going to do everything they can to keep this out of the alphabet news circles... and Drudge hasn't touched a TO bashing... there is still every chance in the world that this is the real deal.


TO is standing by their report, that's good enough for me.


To those who can't seem to get on with their lives without an expiration date... get a life!




:dilemma:

:rant:

[katty]

10. amen!

[symbolman]

33. Give me a Break

He's either FACTUAL or NOT.. if he makes ROCK SOLID STATEMENTS then he should be HELD to that Standard, Period.. or he'd NOT to be trusted, AND he's NOT a reporter, he's a Con man, a PR SHILL..

He pulls stuff out of his ass, and even Raw STory has moved away from this guy, and I've never liked the way they "move the goalposts" either, maybe HE taught them that..

I'm beginning to think some people here have OomphaLoomphas living under their beds.

Now you can say that you've been "attacked" when someone says, Hey isn't that house on fire? "No, maybe we'll check back in a week and see if it's caught fire then.. gee,, look, a house disappeared, how strange.."

[JuniperLea]

35. Did you read where TO confirmed details between sources?

Or that they reaffirmed their confidence in those sources just today? Or do you just have a hard on to slam TO?

[symbolman]

52. Please don't take this as an insult

but what part of I don't believe them don't you understand?

I didn't believe them in the first place when they had EIGHT sources, then I heard 5, then broken down into 3 and 2 and some unnamed state dept official (and I know who that is btw as Pitt drunkenly gave him away on the DU the other night)..

There isn't anything about their story that adds up.. the addition of the "magic" business hours, but standing solid on the article, change this change that,but still it's SOLID..

In case they haven't noticed it isn't a solid story if you keep having to Explain the bullshit..

No ill will directed towards you, believe what you want, but to me, adding ICE CREAM to bullshit doesn't make it any more appetizing to me :)

[BlooInBloo]

7. 24 hours!!!!

:rofl:

[Stevendsmith]

13. Yeah, how ridiculous was that?

You've got 24 hours!

24 hours to get your affairs in order!

24 hours to clear your name!

24 hours and you turn in your badge!

24 hours to find the real killer.

Jeezus.

It would be funny if it weren't such a serious issue.

[mdmc]

9. time alone, time will tell

that is as much I have invested in this story.

[VolcanoJen]

11. It's Tuesday afternoon. In a 24 hour news cycle...

... I'd say a Saturday afternoon "scoop" has thusly expired.

The statute of limitations has passed.

Can we now agree that Leopold's story appears to be at best poorly sourced, and at worst, complete bunk?

Don't forget the "Target Letter" story of Leopold's that turned out to be crap.

This is important to blog credibility. I've always been a doubter but I really think we need to just slowly back away from Jason Leopold.

[lancdem]

14. I'm not quite sure why everyone assumes Leopold was wrong

He made no specific prediction on when an announcement of charges would be made. Fitz announced the charges against Libby on a Friday; maybe he will with, Rove, too.

[VolcanoJen]

21. Remember Leopold's "Target Letter" scoop?

Remember how Rove's attorney, Luskin, denied that his client had been served such a letter?

Remember how legal pundits across the country went on TV to say that it would be highly unusual for someone to receive a "target letter" unless indictment was imminent, as in, hours?

Wasn't that a few weeks ago, now?

There is nothing in Leopold's past, or sadly, his present, that makes him credible.

Just because we all wish for Rove to be indicted sooner, rather than later, does not make it so.

I've never been on this bandwagon and I'm not jumping on now.

[Stevendsmith]

12. We're desperate to believe that Rove will be indicted.

That's why we entertained the ridiculous notion that Leopold scooped the world.

At least, that's where my head is at right now.

[MADem]

16. I actually think he WILL be indicted

My sense is there's still some T crossing and I dotting going on. That the indictment hasn't been handed up yet....

We've got two more GJ meetings this week. I'm hopeful that it will happen this week. I don't believe the indictment has actually happened yet, though I don't know for certain one way or another. The only ones who really know are the GJ, Fitzgerald, the Rove lawyers, and the Judge who has received, or will receive, it.

[JuniperLea]

26. I agree! This from TO today...

How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story?

On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on
Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead
of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on
both counts.

What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact
been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served
with an indictment.

In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were
explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking
state department official who reported communication with a source who had
"direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances,
substantial detail was provided and matched.

We had confirmation. We ran the story.

[grytpype]

17. give it up

he's like CHB

[pnwmom]

19. If it turns out that there was a sealed indictment, dating to

about the time of the article, then I suppose he should be given credit.

[deansyawp]

24. Yes, the only

way he can be proven right now if there was a sealed indictment, delivered Friday, that is going to be unsealed in the near future. Did Fitz deliver one (perjury?) and hint at others (obstruction?) unless Rove cooperates? IANAL but from what I've heard seems possible. But then, wouldn't Leopold's supposed sources know this as well and be able to pass that along?

Still, it doesn't explain the "15 hours" or the "24 (business) hours" or the other details that seem ... fishy, to be very generous, as many others have said. Finding out whether Fitz was in Chicago or DC on Friday -- geeze this seems like something that somebody must know.

At any rate, I haven't posted here in forever, so I know I'm a born again newbie, whose opinion counts as such, but that's how it seems to me.

[pnwmom]

28. I'm with you on the "fishy" details.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

20. Wow. The Leopold-Haters Club must be on a membership drive.

[meisje]

40. .

[Taxloss]

43. Is Leopold paying you?

Because you'recarrying a lot of his baggage for free, otherwise.

[Maddy McCall]

50. LOL.

:thumbsup:

[Jacobin]

44. Why is it hateful to wonder if someone's story is accurate?

I put a lot of stock and faith in the blogosphere, Josh Marshall, Will Pitt, and others. If it turns out we are being played by someone, and especially if someone is fucking with Will Pitt's work, I tend to get a bit testy.

I'm wondering why others here aren't concerned about Will getting played by Jason.

[noamnety]

22. I'm more focused on Rove being indicted

than I am on truthout being indicted.

[stop the bleeding]

23. yep - we are all on the same team

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

27. I don't know. We better be on the safe side and panic.

[JuniperLea]

29. From TO..... TODAY!!! "The story is accurate..."

How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story?

On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on
Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead
of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on
both counts.

What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact
been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served
with an indictment.

In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were
explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking
state department official who reported communication with a source who had
"direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances,
substantial detail was provided and matched.

We had confirmation. We ran the story.

[pnwmom]

31. Now I'd like them to go back to those sources and ask

what the heck is going on?!!!!!!!!!!!

Not that I'm feeling impatient or anything . . .

[Inland]

32. A secret indictment? Whatever.

I didn't know that an indictment could be handed down and unsealed, secretly, to be served on somebody.

But we'll see, I guess. Nothing to do but wait, anyway, if Fitz has decided to leave an indicted person without any arraignment.

[k_jerome]

30. it depends on rove's business hours. nt.

[Balbus]

37. Today's 24 hours isn't your daddy's 24 hours...

[Nimrod2005]

39. Until when I wake up tomorrow, that's it!!!

[meisje]

41. Rove's 24 is up and so is Jason's 15

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Until It Is Proven Right Or Wrong, One Way Or The Other.

Only with truth of the matter can the validity of the article be judged. So whenever the truth, one way or the other, comes out, well then that is the when the time is up.

[Maddy McCall]

45. If the indictment papers aren't dated May 12 or before, then he was wrong.

He said that Rove was indicted on Friday in his story.

Even the MSM has speculated for the past month or so that Rove would be indicted soon.

Only Leopold claimed that it had happened on Friday...

So, to answer your question, I can wait a year if need be. But if the indictment papers aren't dated MAY 12, then Leopold got it wrong.

Ideally, I'd love to see Rove indicted in September or October--right before the elections. :D

[Snivi Yllom]

46. Leopold reported Rove was indicted Friday

It has now been 4 days since that 'indictment' occured according to the story.

It stretches past the limits of reality that Karl Rove was indicted Friday and 4 days later there is nothing else to back it up.

Leopold has reported numerous times in the past Rove was about to be indicted.

October 6: "BREAKING!! Karl Rove May Face Imminent Indictment; Scheduled to Testify Before Plamegate Grand Jury One Last Time"

October 25: "Those close to the investigation say that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been told that David Wurmser, then a Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney on loan from the office of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, met with Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in June 2003 and told Libby that Plame set up the Wilson trip. He asserted that it was a boondoggle, the sources said."

October 26: "Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY."

October 28: "…Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald plans to pursue broader conspiracy charges against Cheney senior White House officials, and top officials at the State Department and the National Security Council, that may finally shed light on how the Bush administration came to use erroneous intelligence that claimed Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger, lawyers involved in the two year old investigation said."

November 7: "Fitzgerald has eyed Cheney in seeking to ascertain who ordered the leak, as previously reported. While the Vice President stands accused of no wrongdoing, his role may come into greater focus during a trial."

December 15: "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the second grand jury investigating the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson for several hours Friday. Unless Rove's attorney intervenes at the 11th hour yet again, Fitzgerald is expected to ask the grand jury to indict Rove - at the very least - for making false statements to the FBI and Justice Department investigators in October 2003, lawyers close to the case say."

January 10: "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is said to have spent the past month preparing evidence he will present to a grand jury alleging that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove knowingly made false statements to FBI and Justice Department investigators and lied under oath while he was being questioned about his role in the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity more than two years ago, according to sources knowledgeable about the probe."

March 28: "It may seem as though it's been moving along at a snail's pace, but the second part of the federal investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is nearly complete, with attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials. These sources work or worked at the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council."

April 20: "The grand jury session in federal court in Washington, DC, sources close to the case said, was the first time this year that Fitzgerald told the jurors that he would soon present them with a list of criminal charges he intends to file against Rove in hopes of having the grand jury return a multi-count indictment against Rove."

April 26: "Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a "target letter" sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday."

April 28: "Despite vehement denials by his attorney, who said this week that Karl Rove is neither a "target" nor in danger of being indicted in the CIA leak case, the special counsel leading the investigation has already written up charges against Rove, and a grand jury is expected to vote on whether to indict the Deputy White House Chief of Staff sometime next week, sources knowledgeable about the probe said Friday afternoon."

May 7: "It was following their disclosure that Fitzgerald advised Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, several weeks ago that he intends to indict Rove for perjury and lying to investigators."

[Maddy McCall]

47. Did you compile that?

You need to post that in its own thread. Seriously.

I wish I could recommend a single post in a thread, and I can't. That post needs its own thread.

:thumbsup:

[Snivi Yllom]

48. no, the list of past Leopold stories claiming Rove would be indicted

came from this blog

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2006/05/leaping_leopold.html#more

[Maddy McCall]

49. I haven't seen it posted at DU.

Very informative. I'm giving your post a rec, anyway. :D

[RagAss]

51. 9 more minutes......