Should Leopold Out His Sources?

[berni_mccoy]

He said he would if they were lying to him. Did these multiple sources get it wrong too or did they set him up?

It would be interesting to hear what they have to say about this.

[garybeck]

1. if he doesn't out them he should be fired. period. end of story.

[Snivi Yllom]

17. Jason Leopold should be canned anyway

for attempting to practice journalism without a clue


But yes, for gods sake, he and TO should take some accountability for being 100% wrong and explain how they screwed the pooch so badly. I don't expect Will Pitt to admit he was wrong, I could be wrong about this, but I doubt it.

[Pale Blue Dot]

2. As someone who defended him, who hoped he was right,

who really wanted to rub it in the face of everyone who doubted him...

You better believe he should. And no more spin.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. What sources?

They live inside his head. That's my guess.

You really want to take a look inside that box of snakes?

Really?

Best to let him and that nonsense just die out while we all move forward.

[arwalden]

6. Damn! That's Cold... Way Harsh!

:thumbsup: :patriot:

[berni_mccoy]

11. Ooooo, SNAP...

OldLeftieLawyer, shame on you! :wow:

[Orsino]

25. It sure is tempting to guess...

...but it's probably not more helpful than it was to believe.

I do want to know what happened, even if it means peeking into a box of snakes. If there's nothing to the story, best to have it fully debunked, so fewer of us fall for such things the next time. If there were sources, I'd like to know who they were.

[TX-RAT]

33. Don't sweet talk us OLL, tell us what you really think.

Love your comments.

[MrModerate]

4. As in, "let's not get fooled again . . ."

If this was a setup meant to embarass the blogosphere let's get the facts and make sure we don't fall for it again.

However:

I'm sufficiently cynical to believe -- at least until I hear a better explanation -- that Leopold's sources were little voices in his head. At this point, the ball's in his court. He has no credibility until he personally reclaims it.

[OzarkDem]

5. Absolutely

it would be interesting to know who they are.

[RoseMead]

7. He did say he would

Maybe he shouldn't have said it, but under the circumstances I think he needs to stand by his word on this. I don't know if he can salvage any credibility at this point, but going back on his promise surely won't help matters.

[treestar]

8. Not until Rove produces that letter and somebody explains why

and prosecutor would promise any potential suspect that they will not be indicted, when the investigation is ongoing and more evidence could come up.

[garybeck]

16. enough already... Rove doesn't have to show the letter.

if he was indicted we would eventually find out. no one has to prove they weren't indicted.

[treestar]

22. But no one can be sure they won't be tomorrow

That was the point.

Why would any prosecutor ever assure anyone they aren't going to be indicted? When the investigation is still ongoing?

I say Luskin/Rove are "spinning" the words in the letter. That is certainly something Rove would do.

[theboss]

27. People are told all the time that they are no longer suspects

Most attorneys are civil to one another. Fitzgerald does not strike me as the type to leave someone (and his entire legal team) in the dark if he has moved on from them.

[Orsino]

28. If Luskin *isn't* showing it off, I'd like to know why.

As much suspicion as has been heaped on him, it doesn't make sense to conceal it, unless pieces of it would embarrass him. Rove was, after all, of extreme interest to the prosecutor, and even if he has been "cleared" of illegal activities, whatever the prosecutor knows of his conduct might reflect badly on certain parties.

[IsIt1984Yet]

30. Because... the six people in the world who actually believed Leopold

are all DUers... and Rove could likely give a fuck what DUers think.

[Orsino]

32. Those few don't matter, as you said.

The millions aware that Rove has been repeatedly grilled over a period of years, and who heard that he was about to be indicted, might care a little.

[treestar]

35. That could be. Parts of it just embarass him in some way

He thinks it makes him look bad not to be a perfect saint.

[azurnoir]

9. wonder

how much Halliburton stock he owns now?

[Junkdrawer]

10. If this is a Rove trick (and I think it is) I say NO...

Rove doesn't lightly plant these things. Rove would have planted the story with the good guys. That way, when it blows up, THEY get tarred.

[rox63]

12. Yes, that's what he said he'd do n/t

[Mr_Spock]

13. I have already suggested this today - YES

If this man has any integrity and he was lied to as a set-up - there is no question that these sources should NOT be protected.

[sendero]

14. If he wants..

.. to have any credibility ever again as a "journalist", he will have to. It's really up to him.

[Strong Atheist]

15. Something I have wondered:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1414079&mesg_id=1414381

[johnnie]

18. I don't care if he does or doesn't

This whole mess is really only a big deal in a few corners of the internet. No one else is paying attention to it. I think that if he outed his sources it would only help to blemish the online news sources even more and make it harder for them to become a trust-worth source of information. If Jason outs anyone, it would just make it less likely that anyone would talk to other online journalists.

[Moloch]

19. I doubt Leopold had any sources in the first place....

once a shady, unethical journalist always a shady, unethical journalist.

[Vidar]

20. Yes

[Sammy Pepys]

21. He probably never talked to anyone in the first place....

If he didn't flat out fabricate the quotes, he probably stole them from blogs, articles or other sources (that might have had anything to do with the Rove/Plame issue) and passed them off as his own.

[Orsino]

23. I want to find out what happened.

I'm sure that, whether or not there was ever any truth to the story, understanding what really occurred would be educational. The real story should come out, but that might not require the outing of any actual sources.

[Canuckistanian]

24. He said that he would

Quite clearly and a few times, I think.

I'm not sure that's the best strategy right now. We still haven't got a clue what happened.

This could have been disinformation from the very beginning. A lot of people could be involved.

But it's not a good strategy to burn all your trusted sources without knowing the motives behind them.

[theboss]

26. Put me in the camp that there are no sources

I think Leopold heard Chris Matthews among others speculating that the indictment was imminent and tried to beat the crowd with a story. If Rove was indicted any time during that week, he could have claimed credit for getting the scoop and saved his repuation.

The fact that Ash, Pitt, and others fell for it is tragic but not surprising.

[Norquist Nemesis]

29. Be funny if they were Luskin and Rove's mouthpiece.

THAT would be something I'd like to see! (Seriously!)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. If he said he would, then, yes he should

The guy already has a credibility issue

[berni_mccoy]

34. I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.

I don't think Jason should out his sources unless he can prove they intentionally deceived him. If he can prove they lied to him, then I say all assurances are void.

If these people made a mistake, they should realize the implication to Jason's career and at a minimum, apologize to him, if not come forward and explain their deception.