I think Jason Leopold was set-up. Long post from tin-foil land...

[Truth2Tell]

Since this issue has reared its head around here - Long post – but if anyone cares, I think it’s interesting.

First of all, a disclaimer: Nothing in this post should in any way be construed as support for, or confirmation of, Jason Leopold’s Karl Rove indictment story. I take no position on the veracity of that story. I’m interested instead in what appears to have been a deliberate and very well orchestrated attempt to discredit Leopold - related to the publication of that story.

So here goes…

The Washington Post Piles on Jason Leopold

On June 18, 2006, an opinion piece <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601754.html> appeared in the OpEd section of The Washington Post by a “freelance” reporter named Joe Lauria. The piece was a scathing attack on Jason Leopold of TruthOut. In his article, Lauria made the dramatic and serious charge, among others, that Leopold had misrepresented himself as Mr. Lauria in a phone call to Karl Rove spokesman Mark Corallo the previous month - just days prior to his publication of the Rove indictment story. Leopold made this representation, according to Lauria, in an effort to deceive Corallo into sharing information about the ongoing Fitzgerald investigation. The charges in the article were widely reprinted around the blogosphere and served to quite effectively discredit both Leopold and TruthOut.

This trashing took hold despite the fact that Leopold’s reporting on the Fitzgerald case - on both Raw Story and TruthOut - had been ahead of the MSM for several months, and indicated the high likelihood that Leopold possessed a reliable source with information on the investigation.

This hit piece followed the publication, the previous month, of another hit piece <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101374.html> by Post “reporter” Howard Kurtz about the Leopold/Rove story. Incredibly, this was the second attack <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.html> by Kurtz on Leopold in the pages of the Post that spring.

A great deal of circumstantial evidence suggests that all of these articles were part of a deliberate and sophisticated effort to falsely accuse Leopold of lying and to discredit him and/or his reporting. The evidence suggests this effort to discredit Leopold was underway prior to his May 13, 2006 TruthOut report, but was only fully carried out upon the publication of that report - and upon the publication of the Lauria hit piece.

Attackers tell conflicting stories

The first sign that something was amiss was that Howard Kurtz, Joe Lauria and Mark Corallo didn’t get their own stories straight in their attacks. It’s tricky, but follow this:

In his June 18 attack piece Lauria tells an oddly unbelievable tale of how he hit upon the idea that Leopold must have impersonated him. He relates that:

"I trawled the Internet looking for a clue to the truth. I found a blog called Talk Left....
...reported that Corallo said he had "never spoken with someone identifying himself as 'Jason Leopold.' He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday . . . but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the London... Sunday Times. . . . A chill went down my back. I freelance for the Sunday Times. My first name is often mistaken for Joel...I called Corallo. He confirmed that my name was the one the caller had used."

In this account Lauria claims to have pieced together Leopold's malfeasance thanks to his own artful snooping on the Web.

However, in his May 22 Washington Post hatchet job on Leopold - immediately following the TruthOut indictment story -
Kurtz reported that it was in fact Corallo who contacted Joe Lauria after amazingly piecing together Leopold’s use of the phrase “borders on defamation” in a “conversation” with a “liberal blogger”:

"Corallo says a man identifying himself as London Sunday Times contributor Joe Lauria called about the story, which Corallo told him 'borders on defamation.' The man left what turned out to be a wrong number. After Leopold told a liberal blogger that Corallo had told him that the story bordered on defamation, Corallo reached Lauria..."

It's notable that much of the same vitriolic language about Leopold appears in both Kurtz's May 22 piece and Lauria's attack piece, much of it almost word for word.

But they didn't quite get their stories straight. Lauria says he figured it all out and called Mark Corallo. But Corallo had already said publicly that he figured it all out and called Joe Lauria.

Some questions: Had Joe Lauria ever previously spoken with Mark Corallo? Had he ever done any work on the Rove story? How or from whom did he obtain Corallo’s phone number on Monday May 15? Howard Kurtz maybe? Or did he already have it?

Strange meeting between Joe Lauria and Leopold

Additionally, in his June 18 attack, Lauria describes a curious encounter he allegedly had with Leopold three days prior to Leopold’s publication of his Rove indictment story. In it he states that he spoke with Jason Leopold on May 10, 2006 “…to discuss his recently published memoir, News Junkie." He then goes on to relate and quote all manner of nasty journalistic practices that he claims Leopold related to him at that time. He then concludes that “…Before we parted, I told him a bit about myself -- that I freelance for numerous newspapers, including the Sunday Times of London…”

He makes this disclosure in an effort to explain how Leopold allegedly came to use his identity with Corallo three days later. (See The TalkLeft Charade below)

This account seriously begs a few questions: First, under what pretense was Lauria interviewing or meeting with Leopold under which his work for The Sunday Times et al was only mentioned “…Before we parted…”, and not at the outset? Was this meeting random or arranged? How extensive was it? Why would a mainstream UN reporter be interviewing Leopold about his book, if indeed he was? Was the Rove case discussed at all at this meeting?

For whom was Lauria writing a “book review” of Leopold’s book? It’s extremely hard to believe he would simply decide to do such a thing on his own initiative and then seek a buyer. Book reviews don’t seem to be a part of his usual UN beat.

This strange meeting would seem to suggest that Joe Lauria was already engaged by someone to do a hit piece on Leopold prior to May 10. This then means that the Rove indictment story was either anticipated by Corallo and Lauria, (a scenario with stunning implications) or was very rapidly seized upon as an opportunity to throw some new and false accusations at Leopold.

The TalkLeft Charade

A crucial series of events in the effort to falsely implicate Jason Leopold appears to have taken place on May 15, 2006 when Mark Corallo called Jeralyn Merritt, the publisher of the liberal blog TalkLeft. Corallo called Merritt on the pretense of responding to Leopold’s TruthOut story, and claims made to Merritt by Leopold the previous day and reported <http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014843.html> on TalkLeft.

According to Merritt, Corallo reportedly began his call to her by stating that “He has never spoken with someone identifying himself as ‘Jason Leopold.’

He then continues his statement by curiously emphasizing some seemingly irrelevant information:

“He has never spoken with someone identifying himself as ‘Jason Leopold.’ He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday… the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the London Sunday Times. The calls were to his home number. At one point during their last conversation, he offered to call Joel back, and was given a cell phone number that began with 917. When he called the number back, it turned out not to be a number for Joel…”

The evidence suggests that that the account by Corallo in this statement to Merritt is entirely contrived.

The name 'Joel' and the 'London Sunday Times' and the completely extraneous reference to area code '917' were deliberately and prominently included by Corallo in his statement to Merritt with the foreknowledge that they would be used by Joe Lauria to falsely accuse Jason Leopold of lying. There is no other logical reason to have included this information in his statement at a point when he had supposedly not yet even heard of Joe Lauria.

Corallo then followed up with Merritt later that evening (see same post) to complete the circle and point Merritt to Joe Lauria as the aggrieved journalist victim of Jason Leopold.

In short, in strongly appears that Mark Corallo, and Joe Lauria deliberately used Jeralyn Merritt and TalkLeft in a well executed scheme to frame Jason Leopold for lying about his identity and discredit his work.

Who is Joe Lauria?

Joe Lauria appears at first blush to be an accredited progressive journalist. Most recent references to Mr. Lauria and his work reveal an evenhanded and thoughtful writer on subjects such as the run up to the Iraq war, etc. His work has even coincidentally included at least one appearance on Howard Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources” show on CNN.

However, it’s very difficult to find anything on Mr. Lauria dated prior to 2003 or so.

What old work is searchable is interesting in how it directly contrasts with his more recent stuff. For example: this 2001 Boston Globe piece, Seeking Saddam’s Smoking Gun <http://www.spiritoftruth.org/cached/Seeking%20Saddam's%20smoking%20gun%20Links%20between%20Iraq,%20Osama%20Bin%20Laden%20and%20recent%20major%20terrorist%20attacks.htm>, still viewable at Free Republic.

Lauria's source for that article was wingnut Laurie Mylroie <http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html>, who is chummy with John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle.

Or this 2001 Saddam = Bio weapons piece <http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2001/1022iraq.htm> In the Vancouver Sun. Interesting how his outlook seems to have flipped.

I’d love to find this article <http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020311.htm> referenced in 2002 by the warmongering Center for Nonproliferation Studies: Joe Lauria, "How Bin Laden Tried to Get the Bomb," Gazette (Montreal), October 2, 2001, p. B1, but the Gazette doesn’t seem to have it up any longer.

Anyway, Lauria appears to have been focused for quite some time on issues relating to both the UN and Saddam’s alleged ties to bio weapons.

Interestingly, another guy who’s been vocally obsessed with the UN and the alleged Saddam/Bio weapons ties for years is former Representative Bob Livingstone - ex-chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and current partner in the high-powered neo-con lobbying and propaganda shop, The Livingston Group <http://www.livingstongroupdc.com/>. See Livingston Group involvement in the infamous Jessica Lynch PR / PsyOps operation <http://www.prwatch.org/node/2270>

And who was Congressman Livingston’s Press Secretary from 1996-1999? Yep, Mark Corallo <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Corallo>. :)

So what’s the point of this long post?

If anyone’s managed to follow this whole post, may I try to justify myself a bit. I know this stuff is long-winded and conspiratorial. However, I think its importance lies in the fact that it may open a tiny window on the sick machinations of our media gatekeepers. I think that, while speculative, it makes a circumstantial case that much more goes on in our media and Web world than meets the eye. Call me crazy. You won’t be the first.

I should also add that I have no relation to Jason Leopold whatsoever. I have emailed Leopold, Jeralyn Merritt, Marc Ash, Joe Lauria, and Howard Kurtz with questions about these matters. I have received zero response from all of them.

[Kagemusha]

1. Look, if your position is that spin doctors are manipulative SOB's, I'll happily agree

That just doesn't make Leopold a saint either. I've still seen no evidence proving what he said was true, is, or ever was, in the matter above.

[Truth2Tell]

2. I don't know if what he wrote was true

I think it most likely was not.

But he was doing top notch reporting on the Plame case before that Rove piece. He obviously had a good source and was out in front on the story. But then he was either given bad information deliberately, or was given bad information mistakenly.

That bad reporting was then jumped on by the WaPo to discredit him and TruthOut.

My point, among others, is that it appears the attempt to discredit him was sophisticated and deliberate, and was underway prior to the publication of the Rove story. And may have been related to it.

[Kagemusha]

3. Now you're just trying to spin me.

Out in front of what story? Whatever.

[Truth2Tell]

4. Snark away if you like..

Leopold was the first to talk about missing emails, Cheney’s involvement, and many other issues that were later confirmed by reports in the MSM. This reporting contained many scoops that were later confirmed. None of it has been challenged. Here are a few links:

From TruthOut:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/59/18973/printer

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/57/18058/printer

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18486/printer

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18486/printer

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/57/17445/printer


From Raw Story:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Leak_probe_not_seen_to_end_1221.html

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Testimony_from_Roves_former_assistant_may_1128.html

[Kagemusha]

24. He got out in front of a story you said yourself you think isn't true.

Don't try to impress me with getting out in front of stories that don't exist. The bottom line is the bottom line: today's revelations do absolutely nothing to prove, or even support, Leopold's bold proclamation, which people around this forum are inexplicably continuing to believe in for no apparent logical reason.

[Truth2Tell]

52. The Plame leak investigation

was - and is - a story that actually exists.

Patrick Fitzgerald actually exists.

Really. Look into it.

[demobabe]

50. Leopold was NOT doing top notch reporting on the Plame case...

He was reporting mostly facts, and then would report as fact events he thought were likely outcomes or things that would be glossed over by new articles he was putting out.

If you look at the stories he wrote where Rove/Luskin had received a target letter, there was no way those stories could be factually correct, either. But those were glossed over and forgotten about after the big Rove Indictment story was launched (I think this story was rushed out to cover the factual problems with the target letter stories).

Leopold made a crucial mistake that would NEVER get past a professional editor (not to mention a professional journalist): he relied on one source. We were initially told this one source was many White House sources (Will Pitt originally quoted I think something like over a DOZEN sources). Ultimately it was revealed to be only ONE source.

The only person who set Jason Leopold up was Jason Leopold. He shoulda known better.

[Truth2Tell]

53. You are missing my point

You seem to want to argue the veracity of the Rove story - or even the quality of Leopold's previous reporting.

But nothing you could post on those issues would change the fact that some very elaborate efforts were evidently made to smear Leopold - before and after the Rove story was published. If his reporting was so lame, why would anyone go to such lengths to discredit him?

Then again, maybe you're not missing my point - just ignoring it because you have an axe to grind.

[demobabe]

77. They didn't go to "such lengths" to discredit him

He does it all by himself. Really. I have no axe to grind; I just have an aversion to really bad journalism. Isn't it odd how Leopold gets "burned" over and over by publications, sources, and whatever else?

A pro journalist knows not to do a single source story. Somehow, this was beyond Leopold and Mark Ash. Truthout was the ONLY source to run this story; not a single other source did this story because nobody had more than ONE SOURCE.

Why didn't it occur to Leopold that he was being had (if that were the case, altho I don't believe it was) if nobody else was running the story? Even David Schuster pulled back after he had said he was going to have big news - apparently he didn't want to go with a one-source story: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/21/msnbcs-shuster-signs-point-to-rove-indictment/

Any discrediting that went on with Leopold was because he printed incorrect information or unsubstantiated rumors. He opened himself up wide for it. Why is that so hard to understand?

All it would have taken was for Leopold to have written the story to say "According to one source, Karl Rove has been indicted. We have not been able to confirm this with other sources." No, he wrote that Rove HAD been indicted, and that there were many sources (I forget the exact wording). It was just wrong and he was trying to land the BIG story and go down in history as the next Woodward Bernstein.

Instead, we just have this cluster&$#% of people saying, "well maybe someone was after him, blah, blah, blah.... poor Jason, everyone is always out to get him... etc."

Just look at the facts... they speak for themselves if you know even the teensiest bit about journalism.

[demobabe]

78. Actually, let me modify one thing

If any "set up" happened, it was because he was an easy mark. He had a prior history of problems with articles, including plagiarism. Having those problems, if I were him, I'd be extreeeeeeemely careful of what I was writing and wouldn't even CHANCE the possibility of tarnishing my pro reputation any more.

Why didn't he question why there were no other media on this story other than David Schuster - who ultimately bailed on the story? If it wasn't in the Washington Post or the New York Times, why would such an important story be given to a reporter with a tarnished reputation at an alternative online lefty website? That alone would have made me suspicious and wanting to get extra verification on the story if I were Leopold.

None of it makes any sense whatsoever. It just doesn't. I've looked at it from every angle.

[scarletwoman]

5. Fascinating! An impressive piece of work! And, I have no inclinination to call you crazy.

I really don't know what to think about all this stuff. I totally avoided all the Leopold/Rove indictment uproar back when it happened, and have little desire to revisit it -- but I certainly can appreciate any light that gets shined on hidden corners of the web of connections between the media and Official Washington and such.

Therefore, kudos to you for your hard work -- and my vote to recommend.

sw

[Catherine Vincent]

6. I wouldn't put anything pass Rove.

It was reported that he had his Texas office bugged and blamed it on the opponet. And I believe he is the one that mailed that debate tape to the Gore team.

The bastard can't be trusted.

[OzarkDem]

7. Thanks for the research, good job

This kind of activity shouldn't come as a surprise given the past history of this group. It fits their MO. K&R.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. And as I posted in one linked thread:

let us not forget the savaging that was given to our friend and comrade, William Rivers Pitt. Night after boring, tedious and interminable night.

THAT went well beyond some dedication to the truth mixed with outrage, to something far more sinister.

[glitch]

10. That, "Night after boring, tedious and interminable night" is what made me think Leopold was right.

Such overkill.

[autorank]

40. Thanks for the reminder.

That was really dreadful. People make mistakes or appear to and it's hard to sort it out.

The biggest mistake was not indicting Rove, well next to making those stupid concessions to allow
the two right wing neo-crypto fascists,* as Vidal once said, on the Supreme Court.

The one great hope is that 2004 will be demonstrated to have been a fraud so we can toss all of the
judicial nominees (since they too would be illegitimate;;)

*Referring to William F. Buckley Jr.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. I thought he was set-up back then and said so.

:tinfoilhat:

[Sal Minella]

12. Me too.

[papau]

15. when caught the Secretary of the Army -but they got to his source - the media jumping on him was not

justified -

So why would the planted CIA in the media push to discredit Jason was the question - and my conclusion (as I had some insight re the piece and therefore believed it to be true) was that he had developed sources that had to be discouraged from leaking to him.

Later stories have, for the parts I had the ability to check - all turned out to be true. Of course major parts are beyond my ability to check. But he seems to gain credibility - at least with me - with every story he publishes. I have yet to run across anything that even smells questionable - again as always, in my opinion.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

62. I don't know if you recall at the time, but MSM was all over the "left blogosphere" re Leopold's

story. It made Progressives look very bad.

[papau]

67. MSM was wrong - and MSM does not have the power to make the blogosphere look bad - it

is losing readers by the hour to the left blogoshere because of their ass kissing of the right.

That Jason Sec. of the Army story had a great deal of detail - that MSM ignored once the email source was made to clam up. No doubt those getting info only from MSM saw Jason as "bad" - just as Bush AWOL was a bad story per MSM because they threw out all the other AWOL evidence out so as to bend over backward for the right - if you think Kurtz writes fair media revues then you think Jason harmed the image of the left blogoshere.

I've been a progressive for a long time - and do not worry about what MSM says except to the extent it influences votes. The MSM bias was so obvious in the Jason event I doubt any votes we might have gotten were lost.

Truthout tells us the editors verified Jason's sources and interviews and statements in the Iran story (where contrary to the story nothing actually happened by the suggested date) - and the choice is to trust all of Truthout - or none of them. I trust all of them.

Maybe the left should go into the MSM mode of everything being he said/she said with no analysis of relative credibility - I hope not. Being accepted by MSM is not worth it - in my opinion.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

86. MSM is controlled by large WrongWing Corps and they do have the power to influence the vote

when attempting to make fools out of the Progressive blogs. And please, you cannot judge most of those who follow MSM to have the same critical eye as you do. That's just reality.

If Leopold was deliberately set-up, which is the subject of this thread, that would mean that the sources that were double checked with were either deliberately misled themselves, or were the ones that actually wanted to destroy Leopold's credibility. I do believe that there are loads of agent provocateurs out there. Also remember, that if information was leaked from the Grand Jury, that itself would have been a crime, and has that "leak" been investigated???

Meanwhile, Leopold stated without uncertainty that Rove Was Indicted and was given the weekend to get his things in order. That Never Happened. Period.

[Richard Steele]

66. Indeed. Smelled like a set-up from the get go. nm

[jaysunb]

11. I always thought he got played...

:evilfrown: and said so back then.

[Canuckistanian]

13. I knew there was more to the story

I said, "let's see what what's REALLY going on first", before lynching Leopold.

I never even really believed that there SHOULD have been a lynching in the first place.

The whole outrage seemed manufactured.

[bleever]

14. I don't think Dan Rather would call you crazy.

Big story, inside sources, essentially correct in its facts, but poisoned with a forgery, quickly "discovered" by a right wing blogger, exposed, discredited, and all attention diverted from the facts to the damaged integrity of the reporter...

Thanks for your thoughts about this. Recommended.

[Morgana LaFey]

19. And let's not forget about a name from long ago -- J.H. Hatfield

who wrote Fortunate Son.

Hatfield wrote the book about GWB and in the process interviewed Karl Rove who confirmed Bush's cocaine use.

And so the book was published -- by St. Martin's. But immediately, and I mean immediately upon publication it was revealed that there was a critical error in the book. A judge named in the book had been identified by Hatfield as Republican but was really a Democrat (or vice versa perhaps -- and I think that was the only "error" identified). There was a huge, huge hoopla and it was also revealed that he had been involved in a murder plot some years prior, in conjunction with his boss, and so of course J.H. Hatfield was thoroughly discredited and St. Martin's recalled all extant books -- and burned them!

Hatfield was later suicided. Or so some of us believe, given the circumstances.

Here:
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/8-12-03/discussion.cgi.20.html

Interview with Bush Biographer J.H. Hatfield Who Died
Tue Aug 12 13:50:56 2003
64.140.158.143

Full transcript of interview with Bush Biographer J.H. Hatfield Who Died 2 Years Ago of an Alleged Suicide Amidst Controversy Over his Book Fortunate Son

Today we play an interview that we have held for over three years. It involves allegations of President Bush, drugs, obstruction of justice and corporate scandal. It raises questions about why Bush’s driver license number was changed.

In the book Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President author J.H. Hatfield charges that President Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession and that Bush’s father George Sr. used his political connections to have his son’s record expunged.

Soon after publication, Hatfield’s credibility was challenged. He had been convicted in 1988 for hiring a hit-man in a failed attempt to kill his boss and had served five years in prison.

J.H. Hatfield died of an alleged suicide in July 2001.

Listen to or watch the interview here

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/11/1447218 (transcript continues at the first link above)

[lala_rawraw]

23. Let's not forget either...

That Jason was not the only reporter told about the indictment. It is that the three of us that I am aware anyway, could not confirm it. We each had only one source. If the theory above is true, then Jason was not the only target.

[Catherine Vincent]

25. Hi there!

How are you? :hi:

[lala_rawraw]

28. Eh, tired and unwell.. or normal for me:)

Did you read my Kissinger piece by chance? Seems no one much noticed it. How are you?

[Catherine Vincent]

30. Bummer. I know how you feel.

No, I must have missed your Kissinger piece. Haven't seen any of your posts lately. I will search for it!

[bleever]

29. Making more and more sense.

You'd want (if you were intent on doing evil without interference from the internet journalists) to discredit more than just one notable franchise, like the good folks at Truthout. Because then people would just turn to Buzzflash, Rawstory, etc. Gotta make their whole frequency suspect.

lala, this is the first time I (most of us?) have heard that there were multiple, independent sourcings (or seedings?) of this story. Thank you.

[lala_rawraw]

31. Go back through the archives here...

I said on that day that I called Jason to congratulate him because I was unable to confirm it. I had a single source. I know of two other journalists with the same problem, but I will let them speak for themselves should they ever wish to find their balls and do the right thing. Clearly, I said then, as I say now, Jason did not make up the story. So what the hell happened - as I said then, I say now? Things could have changed or he could have gotten ahead of it. And since he had much more detail than I did... I mean I had a sentence and he had details of a meeting and such, he had to have had multiple sources. But again, given the limited information I had and only from a single source, I could not write the story. I had no information to write. When I saw Jason's story, I thought wow, he got it... and congratulated him. I was shocked at the sudden smear that started. I mean within hours there was absolute belief that Jason was lying. I had argued then that we don't know what is going on, but we have to wait and see what will happen come Monday morning. I mean it was not even a week day yet. I recall it was a Saturday. I spent the next week trying to get someone else to tell me something and everyone, I mean everyone, went silent. No one wanted to talk anymore. If you recall, I did no other stories on the Plame case after that. No one was talking to me anymore, not even returning calls. I don't know why to this day. But then again, my focus was never the Plame case, but the issues surrounding it, that of intel.

What irks me to this day is that the source I had was not the same source (s) Jason had. We did a few stories together, and we had to tell our editor, who knew all sourcing from both of us. Jason and I also signed confidentiality agreements when we worked together, so we told one another the general location in government of sources for a story. So for example (and this is just example), I would say how many do you have for that part of the story and where are they? Are they anywhere near the CIA, for example? If I felt that we may be talking to the same person, then I would go to the our editor, because I wanted to make sure we were not using the same source to both allege and confirm without knowing it. My editor, however, was clear. We never had the same sources, which made our reporting that much more interesting... what we reported was clearly known across various agencies and departments. So, on that day, I said...are these the same sources. He said yes and to me that meant, that none of them were mine and that my own source had come by way of this indictment information on their own. That put more pressure on me to try to find a second source, but by then everyone stopped talking. My source to this day maintains to me privately that they were telling me the truth. But I never ran the story, so I guess it really does not matter. What does matter, however, is that everyone went silent and if the theory above is right, then perhaps the target was not Jason or reporters, but the sources themselves. Either to flush them out by planting bad information where they could find and leak it OR by discrediting the people they were talking to.

So that is my 2 cents. I wish I had more to say. But I am as confused by all of this as everyone else. I honestly don't know what happened. But I have always stood my ground on the issue of importance here. You don't have to like Jason (and he and I don't get along, that is well known), you don't have to respect Jason (and there are good reasons not to), you don't have to condone his behavior in his past (and there is good reason). But that is not the issue here. Those things are not the issue. The issue is, that he did not lie up that allegation. He may have been sloppy. He may have been set up. He may have been entirely right. But no matter what your opinion is of him, he could not have lied. Because other people got a call too, including myself. I have always said this, even though Jason and I don't get along (for different reasons). I have said this because it is the truth and not for any other reason. I just wish the others would grow some balls and fess up. They have told me and from what I understand, they have also told Jason's editor. But they have yet to tell the public. And if you are going to ask me why I don't name them, then you have not understood a word I have said here. (just fyi for those that will likely ask).

The point is, you can hate someone, but you still have to be honest - especially journalists, who should never attack one another without absolute proof, nor deny support for one another, because of personal differences. We don't have to like each other, but that is not the ethical question in play and ethics for me is everything, not reputation. As long as I can look into a mirror and feel good about the person looking back at me, I don't care about anything else. Anyway, it is late and I am going on and on.

[bleever]

37. That is

a lot more than 2 cents. Thanks.

[Spazito]

41. Thank you, lala_rawraw, for posting this

I do remember you posting during that time with regard to this issue. I appreciate knowing that others had the same info from different sources.

[Blackhatjack]

46. Typical Rove tactic --If you cannot discredit the story, discredit the reporter...n/t

[Truth2Tell]

51. Big time thanks for this Larissa!

You do great work. Seems like someone in your position might be able to ask Jason some questions about my theory. Like what the circumstances of his meeting with Joe Lauria were, or if HE believes he was set up. He's never responded to my inquiries.

Your two cents is worth a fortune!

[Morgana LaFey]

32. GOOD point

questions edited out because you already answered them just upthread. Fascinating stuff, Larissa. Just fascinating. I think you may be right that your various sources (yours and Jason's and others') were maybe targets of the setup -- but I would say TOO, not instead of you guys. Or, put another way -- the trap was set for whomever/whatever fell into it. Glad it didn't catch you.

[lala_rawraw]

33. I would trust this

source with our national security, which means i would have to trust this source with my life and the life of citizens in this nation... does that answer your question? My source may have been one of the targets that was setup to flush out the leakers. I have absolutely no clue what happened. I know i trust this source and this source has never before been wrong. However, after this all went down, this source stopped being a source and sort of began leading a "quiet life." I don't know what happened. I really don't.

[lala_rawraw]

35. in a way it caught everyone...

because everyone got quiet.

[Cooley Hurd]

43. David Shuster reported it the same day Jason did on KO...

...however, with less detail. I'm not sure it was a set-up - it was likely that Fitz was was leaned on... heavily.

[KoKo]

72. AND...do folks remember Tweety was Ready to go with it...then it was squelched!

dead...and left up to the Liberal Internets to go after Blair.

I remember distinctly that Tweety was hyperventilating thinking he had the scoop and Schuster was "the man" with the reports and he was hearing some STUFF.

Then it was like a plug was pulled.

[bleever]

34. "Hey, St. Martin's:

if this book ever sees the light of day, you're out of business for publishing lies and slander."

They actually destroyed the copies.

[Morgana LaFey]

44. Yes, but then later published by Soft Skull Press -- and it's

available on Amazon.com and elsewhere I'm sure:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-8210935-1136945?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=fortunate+son&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

[alittlelark]

22. You wrote what I was going to.

Your post was more succinct.... good job!

The Dan Rather incident is what forced my father to question 'journalism' in Amerika.

[autorank]

16. K*R Thank you for this considerable effort. K*R

I never understood the level of antipathy toward Leopold. He'd done some very good work prior to the attacks here. Over what? He had a productive source(s) who took him right up to the edge of a huge story. At the last minute, something happened and the story that people anticipated was not to be.

How does that justify all the hostility from some toward Leopold?

Didn't Woodward and Bernstein have a major misread fairly early in the Watergate series (if that's what happened)? Did the Post fire them, no. Did the readers stop buying the Post and following the story? Of course not. They live in the real world where things work sometimes and at others they don't.

I've never understood where all the anger came from but this background helps with the dynamics.

Thanks.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

17. It wasn't anger in every case.

It was the strategic poisoning of the well, in a few instances.

[autorank]

39. I was only the cases of anger that I found bothersome.

Other arguments that would have been of interest to me were lost in the venom. That's my loss for
not slogging through to see the points of interest.

Long time :hi:

[The Count]

59. Poisoning was the goal, anger was the strategy. Hysteria. Foaming at the mouth.

It was what amazed me too - the level of hysteria. I mean, for years we've been covering and reacting to media outrages - from lying about candidates, to lies on wars, building Bush into a human being etc. And here is one of us - who potentially gets a piece of news wrong - and it's more virulently attacked than the war itself! I remember posting at the time - Collin Powell for his test tube at the UN didn't get half of the anger - and he caused people to lie with what he did!
Suddenly "defending the integrity of our reporting" "policing our own" became more important than say, the stealing of two elections! Let alone - the outing of a CIA operative - which was being buried in the process....

[bleever]

49. Here's an idea: kill the messenger. Kill lots of messengers.

Make sure that only messengers who are on board with broadcasting THE message survive.

Works in the media, works in the Pentagon and the armed forces, works down at the precinct level and all points in between.

(P.S.: The bonus clue is that to destroy democratic structures, first wrap yourself tightly in red, white, and blue, and a trumpeted policy of not letting people's families get killed by strangers from afar.)

:thumbsup:

[autorank]

64. We've seen plenty of this havn't we.

The particulars and the level of public awareness may be different,
but the formula is eerily familiar. But there is, as you so aptly
point out, a credibility the tear down artists acquire by mouthing
find principles as they do their jobs (which is not to say that many
might have legitimate gripes, I'm talking about the vicious personal
attacks which would never be made face to face).


Election 2004: The Urban Legend

[Klukie]

18. This wouldn't surprise me at all...

just for the simple, indisputable fact that Karl Rove would take anyone out who threatened him.

[The Count]

20. There were DU professional trashers too - who since disappeared. Old Leftie Lawyer started

by trashing Leopold, evolved into arguing that "Rove did nothing wrong" and proceeded to trash the Wilsons (from their being present to the WH correspondents' dinner - to "jumping the shark" comments.
Once revealed, this person completely disappeared.
No connection with Leopold either, but this matched the Fortunate Son MO too well to be a coincidence. Thanks for doing this. I had never lost my trust in Truthout, BTW.

[libnnc]

21. I still don't understand OLL's fan base here

She was damn nasty in trashing Leopold and others who believed him or just wanted to hear his explanation.

[depakid]

27. She knew what she was talking about

with respect to DC criminal procedure- and knew damn well that Leopold's story was bogus. Leopold should have known too- but instead, he went out on limb- and ended up embarrassing himself and others.

That's really the long and short of it.

[The Count]

56. From the fanbase itself. Now, about the "Wilsons have jumped the shark" and

the whole Plame affair is BS - also an OLL proposition - care to defend that one too?
Also, the trashing of Fitz and predictions that no indictment would ever come out of that? OLL couldn't make THAT up, non?

[depakid]

61. Has nothing to do with a "fan base"

and I have no idea about whatever other allegations that you're making. I just happen to remember that there were A LOT of ignorant people on the various threads during the time that Leopold broke his irresponsible story.

OLL understood criminal procedure and tried to explain to all the wishful "thinkers" why no indictment of Rove had happened- or would have happened at that time. I was on those threads- and know a little bit about law myself. Indeed, I posted the rules on point re: sealing indictments, etc.

Unfortunately, all too many DU'rs seem to have difficulty accepting facts and analysis when it gets in the way of either their cherished beliefs or their pet theories- which all too often have little basis in reality. That was certainly the case during that weekend- and frankly, it was embarrassing.

[Lars39]

82. OLL also isisted that "everyone" in DC knew Plame was covert.

[The Count]

83. OLL defended Rove, attacked Fitz, the Plame case,the Wilsons , predicted no indictment

How much more wrong can someone get before your BS radar is activated?
But then again, calling bunch of people here "ignorants"speaks a bit on where you come from.
I happen to be a lawyer too, and other lawyers on DU (yeah, "ignorants" us all) pointed to the shoddy legal arguments OLL was making.
I missed the banning day - but by the time OLL was trashing the Wilsons and their case, OLL's legal qualifications were the least of her problems in my book.
And as I wrote before, the level of venom and hysteria far outmatched the alleged "crime" they were supposedly fighting. My BS radar usually goes on when someone gets too intent on destroying someone powerless. Or calling DU-ers ignorants.

[KoKo]

73. Leopold went out on a limb TOO SOON...didn't mean he was wrong...but

there was something with Rove...It just seemed that Fitz didn't want to go there. And those on the Liberal Internets maybe didn't want to lose credibility once Salon revealed that Jason had problems in the past. It was like the "New Reporters" on Lib Internet were caught between the NYT's/WaPo/M$M and keeping their credibility and Jason got caught in the middle.

DU Skeptics were correct to question after Salon and others pointed out that Jason wasn't unblemished...but...there were still those niggling questions. :shrug:

[Spazito]

26. Yep, and don't forget the hate-on s/he had for Fitzgerald

It is also interesting that OLL was wrong in all her/his predictions. No one would be indicted, etc.

I also found it interesting OLL was often wrong on some of even the basic tenets of the law, so basic one only had to google to prove her/him wrong.

[KoKo]

74. She made lots of sense when she posted...but then she would get very angry and mean if challenged...

But, then many DU'ers act the same way. It was hard to know with her...but after she did her thing...she left. That was odd..but maybe she just got tired of here.. :shrug:

[Garbo 2004]

38. OLL was banned. Didn't just disappear. n/t

[The Count]

57. Didn't know - thanks. Fans are still devoted I see...

Snark and sarcasm will bring you a devoted following now a days - almost no matter where is directed...I am sure that at least some of them were in just for the joy and excitement of the pile-on.
Others, not so sure...

[KoKo]

75. I heard she just left..on her own....lots of questions after that...but maybe she

was banned after folks were asking. :shrug: Has anyone checked her profile to see?

[Garbo 2004]

76. She was banned quite some time ago. I don't recall the thread/issue that precipitated it but recall

being on DU shortly after she had been banned. And I did check the profile at the time.

[Truth2Tell]

54. Same at the TruthOut forum

I wasn't reading DU yet when this story came out - but I was reading the TruthOut forum. It seemed to me like the flying monkeys were poised and ready to swarm extremely quickly and savagely when the Rove story was published. It was that suspiciously quick, and seemingly coordinated response that initially raised my eyebrows about this. I made a few posts at TruthOut with some of these questions back then - but they were lost in the chaos.

This is the first time I've put it all together in one place.

[tbyg52]

36. I must admit to not even reading the entire post

I thought Leopold was framed from the time it first came up. Just didn't pass the smell test.

[Patsy Stone]

42. I never thought he was making up the impending indictment.

That would have been career suicide, and if he wanted to end his career, he could have just walked away instead of writing that story and getting trashed. Perhaps the time frame could have been better, but I have no doubt they were very close to indicting Karl.

I think that the blogosphere in general was set up. Reporters found out information, and when it came down to it, they got too close and the sources started running scared when the political machine cranked up. Once that happened, there was no other choice but to strike up the Mighty Wurlitzer and discredit everyone who was on the right track.

[Laurier]

45. Except that he did make it up

There was no indictment.

I think that he rolled the dice and hoped that his story would come true, but that he was too undisciplined as a "journalist" to actually get the facts straight before he wrote a wholly bogus story. He may have heard rumblings of a possible indictment coming, but any journalist will tell you that they hear rumblings of all kinds of things all the time. They don't print the rumblings as statements of fact, though, for good reason. Mostly because they know that many of those rumblings turn out to be complete BS. Just like Leopold's "Rove has been indicted" story turned out to be complete BS.

I have seen no evidence that he or anyone else was "set up" and, let's face it, he has never been credible enough to warrant being a target of any "set up" in the first place.

[blogslut]

47. Read post #31

n/t

[Laurier]

48. I did,

before I wrote #45, and I maintain what I said.

[Patsy Stone]

60. To believe there was no indictment prepared

I would have to believe that Rove sought to return to the GJ and set his story straight five times simply because he's a nice guy who just wanted to do the right thing for the country by helping out Fitz any way he could.

I would also have to believe that Rove didn't remember the Hadley e-mail about Cooper, or his conversation with Cooper, until Fitz either found it on his subpoenaed hard drive or asked him about his discussions with Cooper after Cooper's testimony, yet he took the time to save it (along with other e-mails regarding the Wilsons. Why did he save e-mails about a subject he doesn't remember talking about?

Your assumption would also indicate that Larisa is lying about her sourcing; and, frankly, I believe her much more than an anonymous poster on DU.

You are free to believe Rove wasn't under threat of indictment (prepared, finally sealed, never served, whatever) and I will believe what I believe.

[The Count]

84. Excellent post. Sums it all. Especially the bizzare motivation of those still

ready to pick Rove over Leopold.

[H2O Man]

55. Interesting.

In the weeks before the report that incorrectly stated that Mr. Rove had been indicted, one of the Libby Defense Team's court filings made specific reference to Jason L's reporting on TruthOut. In my experience in these matters, that is a fairly clear indicator that those on the Libby/Rove/Cheney side were not only aware of JL's reporting, but were keeping a fairly close eye upon it.

If we looked at a similar set of circumstances, in a situation where we did not have an emotional investment, I suspect that we would conclude that there may have been an disinformation campaign operating on some level.

[The Count]

58. Also, remember the direct reference to bloggers in the defense's arguments on

allowing the letters for Libby to become public.
More than anything it was the media which was on trial here. So, it's little surprise that "THEY" tried to clean house a bit - and discredit some nasty blogs/bloggers in the process.
I had never a firm opinion on Leopold's veracity until I saw the attention this unknown suddenly got from the big boys at WaPo and other go to sources for leaks from the White House.Least we forget the list:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/29/libby-live-david-addington/
1. Robert Novak

2. Crossfire

3. Capital Gang

4. Chicago Sun-Times

5. Knut Royce (Newday)

6. Timothy Phelps (Newsday)

7. Newsday

8. Walter Pincus

9. Richard Leiby

10. Mike Allen

11. Dana Priest

12. Glenn Kessler .

13. Washington Post

14. Matthew Cooper (Time)

15. John Dickerson (Time)

16. Massimo Calabresi (Time)

17. Michael Duffy (Time)

18. James Carney (Time)

19. Time magazine

20. Evan Thomas (Newsweek)

21. Newsweek

22. Andrea Mitchell (NBC News)

23. Meet the Press (NBC)

24. Chris Matthews (MS-NBC, NBC)

25. Hardball (MSNBC)

26. MSNBC

27. Tim Russert (NBC)

28. Campbell Brown (NBC)

29. NBC

30. Nicholas Kristof (New York Times)

31. David Sanger (New York Times)

32. Judith Miller (New York Times)

33. New York Times

34. Greg Hitt (Wall Street Journal)

35. Paul Gigot (Wall Street Journal)

36. Wall Street Journal

37. John Solomon (Associated Press)

38. Associated Press

39. USA Today

40. Jeff Gannon

41. Talon News

[bleever]

63. That was when Talon News totally lost my respect.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[The Count]

80. I know, my whole world came crumbling down. Et tu, Talon?

:+

[Truth2Tell]

68. Jeff Gannon

Is he a "go to source" or a "big boy"? Or a "go to big boy"? :)

[DisgustedTX]

65. But ROVE WAS INDICTED! THE TRUTHGOTOUT!

:rofl:

[The Count]

81. Hey, say hi to OLL and the other girls in karl's office, wouldn't ya?

Seems the team has been alerted...

[BlooInBloo]

69. Yah - and they were *tricked* into making up the "24 business hours" bullshit.

[Truth2Tell]

70. Evidently you didn't even read my post

If you had, you would've noticed that wasn't even the point.

Try reading next time before you spout.

[BlooInBloo]

71. (shrug) I thought the point was *who's* the source of JP's discrediting...

... In virtue of "24 business hours", *HE* is the source of his discrediting.

And also not identifying the source that burned him. The "good guy" journalists were SOOOOO big on the maxim "only maintain confidentiality for sources that tell you the truth". At the first available opportunity, of course, they do the exact opposite.

Fuck those no-integrity-too-proud-to-just-admit-a-fuckup jackasses.

[Truth2Tell]

79. The point of my post

was that some folks went to extreme and organized lengths to discredit Jason Leopold (and some other Web journalists as well, evidentially) - lengths that defy reason and raise some troubling questions about the individuals involved.

It has nothing to do with 24 business hours or any other detail of Jason Leopold's reporting. It has nothing to do with the VERACITY of his reporting whatsoever. I state that first thing in my post. Did you read it?

Why do you insist on continuing to try to argue a point that is not at issue in this thread? Is it simply that whenever the name Jason Leopold pops up anywhere you and a few others feel an uncontrollable desire to bash him? Seems weird.

[The Count]

85. Again, way too much passion in defending poor little Kkkarl from big bad Leopold.

Some misplaced emotional investment here - to say the least.

[Major Hogwash]

87. Wow, that is good backtracking, to find out about Livingstone's press secretary that way.

I stayed out of the whole mess because it was either going to come out or it wasn't going to come out, and I knew that time would tell.

I like Jason and think he was set up, too.
Yet, there were far too many people flaming him here over it.
And there were far too many people flaming those who defended him here.
All that flaming did nothing to further the truth of the story.

It was obvious to me, years ago, that people were either going to believe that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA officer or they weren't.

After reading 100's of articles published from right-wingers stating that she wasn't a covert CIA officer, it should have been easy for anyone else to realize that the mainstream media was willing to lie about that as well.

Robert Novak even claimed that Mrs. Wilson wasn't a covert CIA officer on the very day that she was testifying before Congress that she was indeed a covert CIA officer at the time of his article in 2003!!

Robert Novak has no credibility whatsoever anymore. None. Zip. Zilch.

Nevetheless, if it takes people like Jason to get the truth out using the internet - a handicap of immense proportions - then I will side with him about his story concerning Rove.

[Truth2Tell]

88. Thanks Major, tis the power of The Google.

and of the Gigablast.com - even better for sleuthing I've found.