Raw Story's CIA leak reporting - Democratic Underground

rawstory

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Nov-01-05 08:56 AM
Original message

Raw Story's CIA leak reporting

Edited on Tue Nov-01-05 09:07 AM by rawstory

Hey guys:

I've noticed some comments on Raw Story about our reporting on the case being "bullshit," and I want to debunk myths about our reporting and also field questions, as time allows. To me, I think a lot of folks are responding to a "disappointing" outcome of the Fitzgerald investigation, and the fact that Fitzgerald changed his mind a lot in the last week. Also -- I think folks are frustrated with our banner headlines. I do want to personally apologize (and I take full responsibility for) "hyping" stories last week. It was an exciting time and the stories were excellent and I should have tempered the headlines so as not to unduly raise expecations.

We stand by our accurate reporting. Most notable, thus far, was that we were the first to report that Cheney was being investigated, something that was subsequently confirmed by Bloomberg News, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. We also reported that two Cheney aides were cooperating in the probe (John Hannah, David Wurmser), which was corroborated by the New York Daily News, the Seattle Times, and others (the New York Times confirmed Hannah).

We also reported that Fitzgerald was seeking indictments against Rove and Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. He did -- which you can see from myriad news reports. Rove's laywer secured a last minute reprieve (which Newsweek partially explained Sunday) by calling in a White House Communications staffer Adam Levine to get Rove off the perjury charge.

We reported that an indictment had been issued on Wednesday, and we reported that there would be at least one indictment. Again, both claims were accurate. We were one of only a few news agencies that actually got what charges Fitzgerald was seeking against Libby right -- obstruction of justice and perjury. We reported that it was unlikely Libby would be charged with the 1982 act because the jury was skeptical. Again, we were right. We reported after the indictment that Fitzgerald was strongly focused on Rove -- which later reports authenticated.

I'm welcome to hear where we made mistakes. Here's a few I know we made: I put up an errant teaser suggesting Bolton was the Under Secretary named in the indictment (it was Marc Grossman); our most recent Cheney story said he testified in 2003 (it was 2004); and our most recent Cheney story suggested Wilson gave a written report (it was an oral report). We're still working out the details about Wurmser's role in providing Libby information. And we've begun to piece together what information Hannah and Wurmser contributed to the indictment, which we'll report on as we have it nailed down.

Some papers did make mistakes. Among them is the New York Times. For example:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

Cheney, the indictment revealed, was not the first to tell Libby about Plame's identity. That came from the State Department's Mark Grossman, who, you'll learn in our reporting later this week, obtained it from someone else.

Anyway, let's flesh this out. Our credibility is very important to us and we'd hate to be smeared by our own side because of the fact there weren't as many indictments as folks here might have wanted. And as everyone knows, there's a lot yet that HASN'T come out -- which I strongly believe will bring more mainstream reporters to what we have already confirmed. There is a far bigger set of people behind the indictment that aren't named in it because they were cooperating witnesses -- and that's something all of us had to expect going into it.