Leopold is really shaky. Sticks to his story. Questions the letter. nt

[thereismore]

[Sammy Pepys]

1. Not very convincing.....

I missed a bit because I got a phone call...but I haven't heard anything about all of the previous reporting snafus that have occurred. That's what I'm really interested in.

[LeftNYC]

2. He is either lying to himself so much he believes himself

or his sources have screwed him. Because he keeps saying "I stand by what I've been told"

Says he won't out sources.

Oh Jason. Your caught.

[idgiehkt]

9. why the change of heart on outing the sources?

I don't understand that.

[LeftNYC]

10. says it isnt completely up to him

whatever that means.

[cantstandbush]

26. But he promised us that he would release the names. n/t

[RagingInMiami]

24. If sources are wrong

Especially if they deliberately mislead him, they should be outed.

You only protect your sources when they are reliable and accurate.

[grytpype]

27. He doesn't have any sources and never did.

He made it up. He heard there was a lot of activity at Luskin's firm that Friday and guessed that it was an indictment. He guessed. That is all.

[Norquist Nemesis]

20. Just lost me with that "no" affirmation

I could've sworn he said he would name his sources. If he's turned on that with a definite "NO", credibility gone for me.

FWIW, I wasn't putting all my hopes on his story in the first place because I'm familiar with how Fitzie works...no leaks. It's amazing how locktight a department he is able to run. So, I was confident Leopold's sources were not from Fitzie's office. However, there are highly credible/reliable 'sources' that some people would never think about...transcriptionists for one. At the moment, Ed's really raking him over the coals.

Leopold's complete credibility is on the line here and he fully understands it. Says he's going to get to the bottom of it. His unequivocal not giving up his sources is troubling to me considering it's sounding like it was either a set up for him or his sources.

(hope that rambling made some sense...gotta go for now)

[cigsandcoffee]

3. He's very weak

He must have known this was a possibility, and I'm frankly surprised he isn't more prepared for it than this. He sounds befuddled.

[Catherine Vincent]

4. He always sound that way in his interviews.

No big deal.

[Connie_Corleone]

5. He said weeks ago that he would reveal his sources.

Now he says he won't. Time to look for a new career. The FBI is hiring.

[tritsofme]

6. Seeing as there is only one business hour left in the day

on the East coast, Fitzgerald better clear this up soon.

[cigsandcoffee]

It's not really up to Fitz to clear up anything

Unless he denies the letter to Rove's attorney, then it's already a done deal. I find it very unlikely that Luskin would lie about the letter, because it would be ridiculous for him to have done so and offers him or his client no gain of any kind.

The only obvious answer which fits all the facts is that Leopold blew it. Hard.

[Sammy Pepys]

7. Sources saying there is a sealed indictment for Rove

...according to Leopold.

:::Sigh:::

[LeftNYC]

8. Ed's doing a good job pressing him

and I am not an Ed fan.

[Sammy Pepys]

11. I agree, on both counts....

I'm just amazed by this. I'm not expecting Leopold to issue a thousand mea culpas and then fall on a sword, but he's not helping his case.

[global1]

16. He Didn't Say The Sealed Indictment Is For Rove.......

Could it be for someone else in the administration? Cheney maybe?

[gratuitous]

12. I haven't seen the letter either

But really, if you can't trust Karl Rove's hired mouthpiece to tell you something about a letter you've never seen, who can you trust? You know?

[cigsandcoffee]

18. I can trust in it being really stupid for him to lie about it

Why would such an expensive hired gun make so silly a move as to lie about the letter? What's to be gained?

[gratuitous]

25. Except . . .

First, there's no downside for Republicans to lie. For example, every word out of their mouths since the alleged trashing of the White House by the departing Clinton administration. No lie is too big, too preposterous, too outrageous not to be tried (at least).

Second, what did Luskin actually say? That Fitzgerald has advised him that he "does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove." Well, now there's a ringingly tepid endorsement if I've ever heard one. Are there any conditions on that? Like, Rove won't be charged as long as he cooperates with a plea deal? Or a time frame? Like, Fitzgerald does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove . . . today? This week? This month?

Carefully worded weaselly statements like Luskin's are the main reason the GOP gets away with so many lies. "We never said Saddam was an 'imminent' threat!" So you go back to the actual quotes, and sure enough, they didn't use the word "imminent" but a couple of times. Then the excuse becomes that Bush didn't say Saddam was an imminent threat. Okay, Bush didn't say that imminent because his advisers didn't trust him to be able to say imminent, but their point remains that Bush himself never used the word "imminent" in relation to Saddam. By this time, of course, the story has become so bollixed up in the public mind (ably assisted by the media, which can't follow anything more complicated than "Monica touched Bill's wee-wee") that you just sort of give up.

Whatever is the final outcome of the Rove Affair, I'd prefer to wait for someone other than his attorney to give the last word.

[cigsandcoffee]

28. Except nothing.

Beyond the New York Times, people who have accepted Luskin's statement include Joseph Wilson, Howard Dean, Charles Schumer, and virtually every media outlet in the country. Believe me, it's over.

[gratuitous]

33. But again, what did Luskin actually say?

His statement parses very carefully, and implies that everything is all wrapped up but says nothing of the sort. If other folks want to accept an ambiguous statement issued by someone who is not in Fitzgerald's office, that's their affair, I suppose. Certainly Luskin has every reason in the world to try to stampede public opinion into believing that his client is in the clear, and he knows that the Mighty Republican Wurlitzer will wheeze into action (indeed, it already has) to spread the word of Rove's total exoneration.

I'm not carrying any brief for Truth Out or Jason Leopold. But based on examples from this administration too numerous to recount fully here (and the "imminent" threat of Saddam Hussein episode mentioned above is just one), I'd take Luskin's statement with more than a grain of salt -- more like a truckload.

[nolabels]

13. I am sticking with Jason

This is what they do and how they do it. Relax people this is story that is overblown

We on the left have waited DECADES for vindication. Just relax

[cigsandcoffee]

31. The story is done

Waiting decades won't change the obvious fact that Rove has not and will not be indicted, at least in Fitzgerald's investigation. I hold out hope that something else will come along, but I'm finsihed with Fitzmas.

[nolabels]

35. I am sticking to the point that the paper was made

The indictment was made but never got delivered, or sealed vs sealed. There was some real hardball going on in some back room somewhere. Obviously that day fitz disappeared for awhile in D.C. was when it happened. When you have been the recipient of enough of them raw deals you get to knowin how they work themselves out. I am standing up for Jason for fact he was a little naive on what they do. He had his heart in correct place and was working his ass off with the story. As for it being over, the only thing that is over is many peoples trust in the criminal justice system that it works. To me, that a much better deal, many knew it didn't work and now many more also now know it don't work

The establishment works for the establishment and everything else takes a back seat

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. let's face it

he rolled the dice and it came up CRAPS. He heard some scuttlebutt...decided to go with it and maybe make a name for himself (as NOT a whackjob) by saying it HAS happened. All with the hopes that it WOULD happen and he could claim SCOOP.

sorry...he blew it...

sP

[LeftNYC]

15. Now he is saying that he is not saying that an indictment is coming

wants to know how Rove's status has changed.

Go away Jason. Take a vacation. Have some beers.

[tridim]

21. Right, because he has never claimed that..

He has only said that he's sticking by his original story and sources that Rove was indicted 4 weeks ago.

Ooh, here comes the faux "progressive" support to back up Little Ed.

[LeftNYC]

22. so if we question Leopold we are faux progressives?

What about the truth?

[tridim]

30. I'm talking about Ed's callers

Who were available as back up, right on cue.

[LeftNYC]

32. oh...yeah I dont normally listen to Ed

Didnt Randi say the Democratic party offered her money, but she passed it up and Ed took it or something..

[tridim]

34. Yep, Ed is the property of the DLC n/t

[adarling]

17. Leopold does seem very honest about it

not like he is a Stephen Glass or anything. I do think that there is something fishy about all of this though. He should investigate it more and see what happened and it seems like he will.

[LeftNYC]

23. I hope so...nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Eh.

Some guy I've never heard of said something on the internet that wasn't true.

:shrug:

[DancingBear]

29. Just finished listening to the interview in the car

Absolutely nauseating.

Duck, dodge, wiggle, "you show me yours and I'll show you mine," etc.

And the winner for Strawman Of The Year is: "I think Fitzgerald should show the letter."

When has Fitzgerald EVER done anything like this? I'll tell you when - NEVER. And Leopold damn well knows he won't do it this time.

Right, the man noted for running leak-proof investigations is gonna run right out and say "Here it is, Jason! OK?"

I am trying - truly really trying - to cut those who believe the story some slack, but this display was so far beyond the pale it's almost surreal.

Oh, and do I really even have to get into "I'll reveal my sources" (May) vs. "NO! Never!" (today)

Even Schultz couldn't buy this load of manure.