Leopold speaks on Americablog

[Techno Dog]

Hi Everyone

I just want to say that these past few days have been the worst in my life. I feel like the worst human being in the world. I was only reporting the truth. Everything I wrote in my book, News Junkie, is now being used against me in the worst way. There is more to this story than you know. I cannot believe Joe Lauria would print such bullshit. Worst of all, he contacted me via email and wrote to me saying he was "very good friends" with Wayne Madsen and he believed my story to be true. He asked me three weeks ago about Corallo and I said I had no idea where Corallo came up with this story. But Joe never told me that my private communication with him would be used for a story. So here is a guy questioning my ethics and never even bothers to tell me that my email correspondence with him was for a story. I'll tell you all this much. No one has been harder on me than me. No matter what these people write about me I broke my own story first. I was the one who came clean about my past, my crime, my substance abuse. I put it all out there.

And for the record, I posted this on Talk Left when the question about "outing" sources came up Like much of the misinformation being peddled about what I said or didn't say or "invented" about this story the issue of "outing" my sources has taken on a life of it's own. It seems that people hear what they want to hear and then post it as fact--ironically, doing the same exact thing I have been accused of doing as it relates to my Rove story.

For the record, I did not "boast" about outing my sources if my story turned out to be wrong. On the Ian Masters radio show on Pacifica radio on May 14th I said, and I quote, "if my sources knowingly led me astray... then they know I would no longer be obliged to protect their anonymity."

That comment was made in a very general sense and was in response to a specific question.

People heard it and like children playing a game of telephone passed it on and on and on until it became "Jason Leopold said he would out his sources if his story is wrong."

Neither I nor the staff of Truthout believe we were lied to or knowingly led astray or manipulated or duped by our sources with regard to the specific details of my story.

And there you have it.
Jason Leopold | 06.18.06 - 2:24 am | #

http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=katsiva&comment=115059857988460158

[Catherine Vincent]

1. You're a busy bee.

:hi:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CatWoman]

16. LOL

Nothing gets past you

:hi:

[idgiehkt]

53. link to Americablog story

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/washington-post-destroys-jason-leopold.html

[Techno Dog]

63. I think it is a bit

dishonest, or maybe wishful thinking to say the left blogisphere didn't go nuts.

While most site's front pages ignored the story, the comments sections and public areas were indeed on fire.

There were plenty of believers going around to spark spirited debates on almost every site covering Plame in any meaningful way.

I even read about a party of lawyers getting up and cheering when the mc announced the Detroit free press was reporting a rove indictment.

That's why I commend those who stood up and demanded 'our side' not let our ideological fantasies to cloud our judgment and make us look foolish.

Even though all over the net they were being called trolls, fuckwits, and whores.

[idgiehkt]

87. lol, maybe that's what they meant by it,... "trolls gone wild"

I hadn't considered that...maybe they were paying attention to the comments sections and the discussion boards.

I personally saw trollage and vitriol spewed on both sides of the argument. But your comment is for John to answer. I've heard this expressed elsewhere as well, the assertion that the blogs/websites of the left didn't carry this and that we are all being misrepresented by this story. It think that's the point. But of course we talked about it, and we got down and dirty with the trolls on it, which was probably the point.

[wakeme2008]

3. are you short on Coke Jason....

:grr:

[OKNancy]

4. Hummm this changes my view somewhat

If Lauria is friends with Madsen, then I'm more inclined to discount what he says.

[MADem]

26. You take the word of the fellow at face value?

Given the imbroglio surrounding him?

Seems to me that sentence could have been planted smack dab in the middle of that rant just to get blood boiling and discredit the source.

However, I don't know either player, or Madsen, so they're the ones who know for sure.

[KittyWampus]

43. Well, Corallo is Rove's defense spokesman. Why would anyone believe him?

[MADem]

45. Well, in which case you are assuming Lauria lied about the conversation

with him, in which he discovered that someone had called using his name and phone number, minus one digit. You'd need a conspiracy between the two to make your scenario work.

Lauria, to my knowledge, hasn't ever been fired from a major publication for taking shortcuts, has no drug habits that have come to the attention of anyone, and has worked for outfits with pretty fierce editors. He's also done a little reporting at HuffPo. His area of expertise and focus of most of his reporting isn't the Plame business, it's the UN.

[idgiehkt]

55. no one is saying Lauria lied

Do I believe Corallo? Hell no. Would I put anything past him or anyone that works for Rove? Hell no.

[MADem]

57. Do you think Merritt lied, then?

She's a left leaning attorney. I'm betting she reported the conversation quite accurately.

And why pick on Lauria, specifically? Why drag him in?

I still think this is a case of hearing hoofbeats and thinking horses, not zebras. Occam's Razor is what I use to slice this mess with...

[JuniperLea]

65. Then perhaps you should re-read the definition of the same

Because the main thrust of that theorem is that should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

To draw any kind of conclusion in this mess requires mass assumptions, regardless of the direction one leans. To fully and correctly use Occam's Razor, one can ONLY conclude that there isn't enough information to form an opinion.

[MADem]

88. But, as I asked, do you think Merritt lied???

Why would Corallo spin such a tale? Why not just say "I never talked to anyone named Jason Leopold." Why drag Lauria in? With such amazing detail, too--his NYC phone number, minus a digit, his freelance paper...and how did Corallo KNOW that Lauria had even spoken to Leopold? Was he skulking around, following him??

We have three people who have talked to Corallo. Only one of the three is a serial liar.

The bottom line here is that EVERYONE, you included, is doing a bit of "mass assuming." Your assumptions differ from mine substantially.

Look, your mileage obviously varies, but my mind will not be changed with a "boogaboogabooga" Rove conspiracy argument. I don't think the bastard is THAT smart, and I'm in the camp that wonders if he isn't cooperating like mad with the special prosecutor, stretching this mess out until after the midterms, where Libby will be convicted and then stay out pending a long, drawn-out appeal.

It's not in their interest to keep Rove front and center. From Rove's perspective, the focus needs to be on the Fearless Leader, not him, and all this nonsense does is keep the spotlight on Rove.

Leopold was supposed to disprove the "cat at the vet" business, and that hasn't happened yet, either. Maybe he found out the guy was at the vet's, and that's why he hasn't piped up on that angle.

[JuniperLea]

99. Why do you want pure conjecture?

Why all the guessing? Why can't you wait for facts?

[MADem]

103. Why are you so persistent about my opinions?

As I have said, I have a right to them.

Just as you have a right to yours.

You're not changing my OPINION with a demand that I wait for facts. Leopold doesn't seem to want to come forward with the key fact, his sources, so that will probably be a long wait.

[idgiehkt]

67. I think it's possible that Corallo is the only one lying here at all.

Being that he works for Karl Rove, it would be more likely than him telling the truth.

[movonne]

5. I find it funny how fast we turn on our own... why do we do this to

ourselves...Drudge has printed many stories that have not been true, but I don't see his base turning against him...this is really old news...

[dogday]

6. I find the acrimony to be misplaced

on this issue as well...... :hi:

[The Straight Story]

9. Well, we EXPECT druge to be crap

And as I have said on several other threads - it's not that the story was wrong, it is how they handled it that seems to piss people off.

[Jigarotta]

11. Drudge is not too popular around here.

I guess you missed that tidbit.
just a fyi.

[TwilightZone]

19. That depends on your definition of "popular"

Many posters are very quick to post the latest crap from Drudge's site, and many of his "stories" get a ludicrous amount of attention on DU.

[tabasco]

21. Truly no sense of proportion.

First of all, this was one erroneous report (AFAIK) and not a deliberate lie.

Compare to the Mighty Wurlitzer - that spews right-wing lies and distortions like a machinegun spews bullets.

[Techno Dog]

41. Not one,

many.


1. Target letter
2. Informed White House
3. Indicted
4. Sealed vs Sealed

All bogus.

[MADem]

30. Leopold may be your "own," but he isn't mine

If we don't stand for truth, we stand for nothing. I think Leopold did use Lauria's name to get a quote, and I also think he made shit up based on what he hoped might happen. He may have heard a juicy rumor from someone who often is in the know, but he clearly didn't do the two source thing--unless he was being gamed the same way he gamed people he called.

I find the guy not credible. But that's my take, others' mileage may vary.

[KittyWampus]

44. That story came from Corallo- Rove's Defense Spokesman. Why do you believe

Corallo?

[MADem]

48. It came from JOE LAURIA, who reported it in the WAPO....

via a LIBERAL LEFTY blogger-attorney. Lauria was the victim of the identity theft. And HE was tipped to the fraud by the TALK LEFT woman (also an attorney) who spoke with Corallo http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014843.html and got additional on-the-record information:

...I felt some sympathy for the affable, seemingly vulnerable 36-year-old. Before we parted, I told him a bit about myself -- that I freelance for numerous newspapers, including the Sunday Times of London. His publicist had earlier given him my cellphone number.

Three days later, Leopold's Rove story appeared. I wrote him a congratulatory e-mail, wondering how long it would be before the establishment media caught up.

But by Monday there was no announcement. No one else published the story. The blogosphere went wild. Leopold said on the radio that he would out his unnamed sources if it turned out that they were wrong or had misled him. I trawled the Internet looking for a clue to the truth. I found a blog called Talk Left, run by Jeralyn Merritt, a Colorado defense lawyer.

Merritt had called Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman who is now privately employed by Rove. She 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 Londay Sunday Times. . . . At one point . . . 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."

Are you suggesting a conspiracy between Lauria and Corallo?? Or a conspiracy between Corallo and Merritt? Or all three??? Two may be company, but three's WAY too much of a crowd.

Lauria has written for some pretty well-known publications, and his coverage hasn't always been very, shall we say, chimp-friendly:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0922-01.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060610/cm_huffpost/022665

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0413-11.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/un_120802_inspectors.htm

I just don't think that dog hunts. I think Leopold is an unethical prevaricator, and needs professional help, for starters.

[idgiehkt]

56. I think it's a conspiracy from Rove.

I don't think Lauria was involved. All things above being true, this all could have been done by Corallo. Leopold insisted that he spoke with Corallo four times. Rove has pulled much much grander shit than this...why on earth is it so hard to imagine he did this little pissy stunt as well.

Don't the words "The blogosphere went wild" make you the least little bit suspicious about what this is about...discredit Leopold, slam the blogs...duh, all in a days work.

[MADem]

59. Well, we will just have to differ. I think Leopold lied and made shit up.

And I think he used Joe Lauria's name and the imprimatur of the London Times to get past the secretary to speak to Corallo. I believe the accounts by Merritt and Lauria on this.

[idgiehkt]

78. but their info came from Corallo, who works for Rove

Sure, I believe them too, Merritt more so than Lauria, but their information came from a stinking pile of Rovian manure.

I am not trying to belabor the point, but wtf ever happened to "CONSIDER THE SOURCE"?

[MADem]

89. Why don't you believe Lauria?

From everything I've seen, his work is solid. He's freelanced for major papers that employ editors!

[JuniperLea]

66. "The blogosphere went wild"

You nailed it! I can't believe this is the first I've seen mention of this little stunt, except for my own, in all the convos on this subject today.

What did Rove have to gain from this?

People are making far too many assumptions here and are falling for too many Rovian tricks. Unfreakingbelieveable!!!

[idgiehkt]

77. Unreal, isn't it. I could almost see it if Corallo didn't work for Rove

And Rove had never done this before. but...and but..., so it's inexcusable.

[JuniperLea]

101. We all blew a gasket with this NSA deal

But to even suggest here that perhaps Rove, Cheney, Bush, et al, are keeping tabs on journalists or pundits or other politicians would surely meet with a tinfoil hat suggestion here.


:eyes:


All the guessing is getting stupid. We only know what we know... and we know only a very few things that are concrete.

To believe anything from the BushCo camp and to use it as an argument, imho, is just idiotic.

[Techno Dog]

51. Come on

Corallo said "joel from the times", from a 917 area code.

For me not to believe him I would have to believe Corallo knew that Joe had met with Leopold three days earlier.

Period.

In order for me to believe Corallo knew Jason met Joe I would have to think Rove has had surveillance on Jason.

In order for me to believe that, I would have to think there was some value in any of the stories Jason was writing beyond gossip.


Since any indictment would be made public almost immediately after it happened, sealed or not, there was never any reason to foil Jason's efforts.

He was NOT uncovering any crimes, any corruption, or malfeasance of any kind, he was reporting on an active investigation and spreading gossip.

To consider foul play of any kind requires leaps of logic that even Leopold himself would be embarrassed to write.

[idgiehkt]

58. Why did Joel and Jason meet???

Was there a book review published? The meeting was about Jason's memoirs.

I can't believe anyone on this board has the audacity to belive any f*cking thing that comes from anybody that works for Karl Rove. What is wrong with people? At the very most, they are both liars, at the very MOST.

[MADem]

62. Who knows? Ask LAURIA, why don't you?

Maybe it was professional curiosity. Maybe it was a chance opportunity. Maybe he was thinking about writing a review, though, in my scant knowledge of his work, he doesn't do that sort of thing.

Are you suggesting that the attorney who writes TALK LEFT is in on this, as well? She was the one who let Lauria know that his identity and reputation had been hijacked.

[idgiehkt]

69. Lauria stated he met with Leopold to talk about the book

I don't think that the Talk Left person did anything but carry lies from a Rove employee to Lauria. Nothing can convince me that there was no deception coming from Rove's office on this, because, well, it's ROVE'S office.

[MADem]

74. No offense, but this woman is an attorney, and I'm assuming she

has a pretty good sense of when she's being bullshitted--from her blog, cited elsewhere in this thread:

Mr. Corallo's tone was not angry. He was friendly and seemed sincere. If anything, he sounded somewhat bewildered and incredulous at how Jason could have written his article.

So, there you have it. A full and complete official Camp Rove denial of everything in Jason's article.

Now we wait and see. Jason has said if the story is false, he will publicly disclose his sources.

Mr. Corallo gave me his cell phone number for future questions. I asked him how late I could call him and he said up to 11 pm was fine for routine matters and any time if it was breaking news.

[idgiehkt]

80. Ted Bundy was friendly and seemed sincere.

what kind of law does Ms. Merritt practice? I know nothing about her; all I know is that Rove is a sociopath and like attracts like.

[MADem]

92. Criminal Defense Law

She's no idiot--I'm thinking she might know when she's being bullshitted:

Jeralyn E. Merritt is criminal defense attorney in Denver representing persons accused of serious federal and state offenses. She served as one of the principal trial lawyers for Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City Bombing Case.

She has served as Secretary, Treasurer and member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as well as on the ABA Criminal Justice Section Council and the Board of Governors of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers.

She is co-author of a treatise on the U.S.A. Patriot Act, published by Lexis-Nexis. She has testified before both Congress and the United States Sentencing Commission on drug sentencing laws.

From 2001 through 2003, she was a Lecturer in Law at the Denver University College of Law teaching "Wrongful Convictions" and "Criminal Defense." ....
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012621.html#012621

TalkLeft was created by Denver-based criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt in 2000 as a companion site to CrimeLynx, the criminal defense practitioner's Guide to the Internet. In June, 2002, TalkLeft was converted into a weblog. Since then, it has received more than 10 million visitors.

TalkLeft is not a neutral site. Our mission is to intelligently and thoroughly examine issues, candidates and legislative initiatives as they pertain to constitutional rights, particularly those of persons accused of crime.

Talkleft is intended for the public, journalists covering crime-based news and politics, policy makers and of course, the criminal defense community.

TalkLeft was a unique voice in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, as it will be in 2006, concentrating on exposing injustices in the criminal justice system and, in particular, those of the current administration....
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013452.html

[Sydnie]

95. I don't question Jeralyn's credentials at all as an attorney, however

she freely admits that she has NEVER attempted to contact a source before and that she is not an investigative reporter by any stretch of the term.

Her call to Luskin one Saturday night was the first time she had ever contacted anyone in that capacity before, and she got her head handed to her for it from Luskin as well. That is where the "tending to his sick cat" message came from.

She is undoubtedly a good attorney. I am not sure (just as she appears to not be sure) that she has the "investigating a story" down quite yet.

Having said that, I often read her blog as her opinions on legal matters are usually quite enlightened.

[MADem]

97. She says right up front that she isn't an investigative reporter

...but hell, she's a criminal defense attorney. She was on the McVeigh team. I'm guessing she knows a thing or two about cross-examination. I'm guessing she's also pretty well grounded in the ethics department.

Actually, she got that cat stuff http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014843.html from Corallo. Here is Luskin's first conversation with her: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014835.html

He was nicer to her the second time they conversed: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014847.html

[Sydnie]

98. I know all that, I know who she is and am familiar with her blog

I post at her blog sometimes myself so I am familiar with the whole story as well as Larry Johnson confirming to her that he posted here.

Investigative reporters might have an edge when chasing a story, that's true. I can't imagine that Jeralyn posed her questions to them (not being in a court room or involved in a case against them herself) as "cross examination". Can you?

[MADem]

102. I got the sense that she was thorough and accurate

She asked the questions, wrote down the answers, asked for permission to quote the players.

I would also imagine, and this is speculation based on her profession and moreover, her participation in the McVeigh case, that she's probably well above average in her ability to sniff out a horseshitter.

Not all cross examinations are HOSTILE. You take each witness as you find them. Sometimes, the Matlock with aspects of Columbo approach works best. Catch flies with honey. Other times, the Perry "Where were you on the night of the seventeenth?" Mason treatment is the way to go. When you have experience in that kind of venue, investigative reporting is probably easier for her than for the average newcomer to it. Look at Greta Van Susteren--she went from lawyer to CNN during the OJ thing, and thence to Faux, with ZERO reporting background, but her ability to cross examine her guests is what made her a success. Same with some of the other lawyers who make the transition from the courtroom to TV (like them, or not!). Asking questions is a well-developed skill in the legal profession.

In terms of detail and accuracy, and plain, easily followed timelines, Merritt beats Leopold hands-down.

I also find it odd that TO hasn't given the promised clarification that was expected today. Of course, it could be that they've given themselves 24 business hours sfter the stroke of midnight to manage that...

[Sydnie]

104. TruthOut did post this today - thanks to kpete

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1462928&mesg_id=1462928

[MADem]

105. I think I'm going to defer to the opinions of the attorney at TALKLEFT

She has the background, experience and record to be credible. She also accurately records the conversations she had, and states plainly who she spoke with. None of this Rita Cosby-esque "my sources say" business.

I just don't believe Leopold. I think he got a few hints about something and made some shit up. By all accounts, he's persuasive and engaging, and he likely took TO along for the ride--and if that is the case, it's a ride straight to hell for them. Hell, for all we know, HE could be the paid-under-the-table GOP operative, if there even IS one (as so many want to believe) in this whole mess.

But only time will tell, I guess!

[Techno Dog]

72. Great you think Karl is an evil genius

I think he is a one trick wonder.

Do you think Lauria is a liar?

Have you read a single one of his stories before making such a public accusation? If so, which one led you to believe he was anything other than a bona fide lefty?

Can you link to a single progressive article Leopold has ever published? I'm not saying he hasn't, but reporting the republican crime beat doesn't qualify you as a progressive.

It just makes you an opportunist.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there exists a body of work where Leopold's progressive values are on display.

[idgiehkt]

84. Off the top of my head I can think of two Rove tricks.

One was Rather, one was Hatfield. Given more time I could come up with more. Oh yeah, the candidate where he went and stole the letterhead and printed some bullshit on it about a party with drinks or something...I can't remember the rest. He is nothing but a dirty trickster from back in the day, it's what he lives for.

Once again, no one is saying Lauria or Merritt is lying, my point is that to automatically assume that an employee of Rove's told the truth is just completely inane. I'm bored of this game, and I think I've made my point so I might just let this go, but I wish people would consider that Lauria and Merritt were lied to. I'm not sure why people are not willing to question the veracity of what Corallo stated. It makes no sense. He can make up a phone number just as easily as Leopold. Lauria wrote what he wrote out of anger, which is a shame, because he was most likely duped and used as a chump. Case in point, if the blogs are so insignificant and unreliable, then why is this story showing up in a dinosaur like the Post to begin with...they protest too much.

[JuniperLea]

68. I think... I also think... I find... n/t

[MADem]

94. Well, good for you!!

You are quite free to have an OPINION, just like I do.

But don't "think" it's not OK for me to have one that differs from yours.

My mileage varies. I've been polite in expressing my opinion, I'd thank you to do the same.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Beelzebud]

32. Since when was he "one of us"?

He has been caught plaigarising work, admitted to being a cokehead, and this Rove story was not the first "suspect" story the guy has printed. Funny you bring up Drudge.

Are we supposed to give a fair pass to a hack like the right-wing gives Drudge a pass? If so, what does that say about us?

[cushla_machree]

38. I'm still confused

Neither I nor the staff of Truthout believe we were lied to or knowingly led astray or manipulated or duped by our sources with regard to the specific details of my story.

HE IS STILL MAKING NO SENSE. This is just as bad as the 'standing down on the rove matter' comment. It means nothing!

So, they were not 'lied' to, or 'duped.' So of thats the case, he just printed rumors as facts then. Because either, you stand by your account or you don't. Either rove got indicted or he didn't.

So WAS there a meeting, did fitz go over to luskins? So what it looks like to me is, they were just having a regular old meeting, and someone decided it was an indictment meeting, and it was printed on TO as fact, with no confirmation.

I still read truthout, but thats bad journalism.

[Techno Dog]

42. There was no meeting

Nobody else is reporting a meeting at Luskin's office.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Yeah, because Drudge's "base" is comprised of total fucking idiots.

If saying "sorry, buddy, but you've shot your credibility to hell" is turning on someone, I guess a lot of people here have turned on him.

But what about the folks here who were insulted up and down, called shitdog, fuckwit, etc. for questioning the story in the first place? Who "turned on" them?

Why, even now, is Leopold calling out folks as "children"? Dude, you just floated a big internet "we are 100% sure this is true" turd that turned out to be -surprise- totally false. And, again, in the process lots of folks who questioned the story were insulted, berated and worse, and people who stuck by it were made to look deluded. "Children" don't understand what they hear and repeat things that turn out not to be true?

Pot, meet kettle. Glass House, meet Stone.

Maybe Drudge can pull that kind of crap and still have right wing dittoheaded morans lapping at his heels, but I would hope that we are smarter than that.

[originalpckelly]

40. I understand your point, but here is why we seem to "turn on our own"

We are better than they are. When someone does this on our side, we discredit them, as they should be discredited. This little affair has been covered by the major media, and will arise any time in the future we find something. It isn't fair the other side gets away with spouting bullshit, but that doesn't make it anymore right when one of our own does it.

It may be painful, and I think a lot of people have overdone the criticism, but in a sense this is what is supposed to happen. If someone hasn't done enough work to prove a news story is true, they shouldn't expect people to believe what they say.

Mr. Leopold was believed by many, because we wanted what he said to be true. We expected justice for Mrs. Wilson, but unfortunately the law has failed us. It is a very high standard that must be met to prove a crime, and Rove played it just right he didn't break the law.

We must move on, and accept it. If we should by chance uncover some new lead, we should make it known, but unfortunately it is unlikely we will be taken as seriously because of what Mr. Leopold did.

Furthermore, we should look at Mr. Leopold's history, I am sorry we might take what he has done before into consideration. If doesn't want someone to make an issue of his troubles he should not have had them. If you don't want someone to bring up the fact you have betrayed journalistic standards before, you shouldn't betray those standards. It is as simple as that.

[IsIt1984Yet]

7. He's all but saying the story was wrong.

Odd.

Just SAY it, already.

[The Straight Story]

8. I found this a bit of interest:

So here is a guy questioning my ethics and never even bothers to tell me that my email correspondence with him was for a story.

Something almost ironic about that. And no, I don't know what. Just seems that reporters in general should know when you talk to anyone in the business (bloggers, forum posters, reporters, et al) that what you say can and will be used in a story.

I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed, but I know that much. Hell, if I ran for office or anything like that I could see someone digging around DU and looking at my posts so they could plaster one of them all over the web.

[Igel]

31. He's presupposing that Lauria's intent when they exchanged

e-mail was for the story. Might not be the case.

[MADem]

49. It is a bit rich....

The email correspondence might not have ever made it into a story at all had not Leopold STOLEN Lauria's identity to use to speak with Rove's mouthpiece!!!!

[idgiehkt]

60. Allegedly.

You are taking the word of a Rove employee over the word of a leftie journalist.

Why?

[MADem]

64. No, I'm not. I am taking the word of an established UN reporter AND

an attorney who blogs at TALK LEFT, as opposed to the rambling, ranting words of an ex(?)junkie who admitted he's unethical, and wrote a BOOK about it, to boot.

[idgiehkt]

81. yes, but they got their info from an employee of Karl Rove.

KARL ROVE.

I'm sure they are great people, and to my knowledge no one has accused them of lying, but their source...my lord.

Like I said before, at the very MOST Corallo and Leopold are lying.

[Techno Dog]

83. Please link

to a single lefty story from Leopold. Like I already said to you, covering the Republican crime beat doesn't make you a lefty.

[texasleo]

10. Shattered Glass

:eyes:

[Jigarotta]

12. TO was to have a further 'explanation' today.

Has anything been posted yet? Is it too late in the day by now?

sheeeesh, what a bunch of schmucks.

All this could have been long forgotten by now but they keep on dragging it out with their stupidity and poor communications skills.

[IsIt1984Yet]

13. Nothing yet.

And I keep checking...

[Marie26]

15. Me too

Isn't that sad? Maybe we should start another vigil thread. :)

[IsIt1984Yet]

18. I could probably kick the 600+ reply one from last week.

It's still alive somewhere ;)

[Marie26]

33. Go for it!

This thread doesn't have nearly enough flame wars. x( Even if you did kick that huge thread, probably no one could even read the thing now. Maybe we could start a new OFFICIAL TRUTHOUT/NONUPDATE/LEOPOLD SIGHTING thread?

[DisgustedTX]

17. Do you hate them for their journalistic FREEDOMS?

:rofl:

[IsIt1984Yet]

22. I just hate the way they've attempted to "redefine" journalism.

I've seem journalism, and that, sir is no journalism.

[Marie26]

14. So, um, why is

he writing on Americablog instead of Truthout? Wasn't Truthout supposed to have an "comprehensive accounting" today? (Checking watch, tapping foot).

[Catherine Vincent]

23. Do we know for sure that this was from the real JL?

Just asking.

[Marie26]

24. Sure sounds like him. nt

[KC21304]

34. No it isn't . There is nothing on Americablog.

[Marie26]

37. Yet this is totally typical

Check any of Leopold's verified comments & the tone and writing style are the same. The whining, blame-shifting, & tone of persecution are constants.

[sabra]

20. Why would JL post in the blog's comments section?

[Jigarotta]

25. maybe the 'news' from TO will be that he got turfed.

hey, if proper info isn't provided gossip is the next best.

[yodermon]

27. Just FYI, everyone, here is his post on TalkLeft

back on June 14, that he references in his AmericaBlog post.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015081.html#comment-227008

Posted by JasonLeopold
June 14, 2006 07:39 PM

Like much of the misinformation being peddled about what I said or didn't say or "invented" about this story the issue of "outing" my sources has taken on a life of it's own. It seems that people hear what they want to hear and then post it as fact--ironically, doing the same exact thing I have been accused of doing as it relates to my Rove story.

For the record, I did not "boast" about outing my sources if my story turned out to be wrong. On the Ian Masters radio show on Pacifica radio on May 14th I said, and I quote, "if my sources knowingly led me astray... then they know I would no longer be obliged to protect their anonymity."

That comment was made in a very general sense and was in response to a specific question.

People heard it and like children playing a game of telephone passed it on and on and on until it became "Jason Leopold said he would out his sources if his story is wrong."

Neither I nor the staff of Truthout believe we were lied to or knowingly led astray or manipulated or duped by our sources with regard to the specific details of my story.

And there you have it.

[Marie26]

29. Cut and... paste.

This guy is certainly all over the blogs. I have the spooky feeling he might even be lurking... here. :yoiks: :hi:

[MADem]

100. Could well be, Marie!

News management and disinformation isn't confined to the tighty righties...!

[devilgrrl]

28. Yeah... I feel so hoodwinked

:eyes:

[Igel]

36. I don't buy the victim story.

Reporters are allowed to be wrong. No problem.

Leopold's whining. I whine. I know whining. I can tolerate legitimate whining. I can even appreciate a fine whine when I hear it; not with dinner, but perhaps afterwards.

But he's whining that he's the victim because a colleague that he treated unethically ran an expose on him and said factually-correct bad things about him. He was truthouted.

[BlooInBloo]

39. Is he gonna tell me more about how I'm too stupid to know...

... what "24 hours" means?

Or is he making more claims without any publically verifiable evidence?

[Junkdrawer]

46. Echos of James Hatfield...

Horns and Halos... :scared:

[MADem]

52. Are you suggesting that this left leaning lawyer is also "in" on it??

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015104.html

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014843.html

She was the conduit for all of the information concerning Leopold and Corallo.

[idgiehkt]

71. there is a broken link in your logic here.

Why do you assume that Corallo, someone who works for Karl Rove, would not lie to Talk Left? It's a left-leaning website, for crying out loud, it has LEFT in the title. He knew whatever he said would be published. Christ, why is this so hard to understand. If this was an attack on the blogosphere, which I think it was, well, this would have just been par for the course to spread it around a little, and what better source but an attorney, someone respectable, to help spread it around.

I don't know what happened or what the answer is but believing this bullshit requires me to believe that someone in Karl Rove's employ was honest and above board, and I am just not that stupid.

[MADem]

93. Why do any SPREADING at all?

Time took care of Leopold. He said events would happen in 24 hours, and they didn't. Then he changed it to 24 business hours, and whatever the fuck that was, it still didn't happen.

Why gild the lily? Leopold was drowning all on his own. All this nonsense did was make ROVE stay in the news longer than necessary.

[Techno Dog]

54. So let me get this straight

You've been told several times why this is in no way similar to Hatfield yet you continue to spread this meme?

Hatfield dug up unreported dirt that needed to be discredited. Rove shot the messenger. As usual.

Leopold was spreading gossip about an investigation from which an indictment would or would not result.

Can you not see the difference?

[idgiehkt]

70. like with Hatfield, Rove WAS the messenger

and then he shot the target. At least that's the way i understand it.

Hatfield never confirmed it, but here he is addressing it:

"I know that Sander Hicks, my publisher, has
stated in interviews and in the introduction to the new, updated second ed!
ition of "Fortunate Son" that Rove was one of my sources, but I cannot personally
deny or confirm. A man's word is his bond and that's about all I have left these days."

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg72903.html
that's from an old Buzzflash interview. Seems to me if Rove wasn't a source, he would just say 'no, Rove is not my source'.

[Techno Dog]

76. "like with Hatfield"

So you are saying Rove is the source?

You really think that is possible?

If so, why exactly is Jason desperately hanging on to the story?

The bombshell that would feed his attention addiction would be outing his source.

"Karl fucking Rove is my source!!! Ash and Pitt both talked to him so you can all eat shit"

Instead we get victimology 101 in random blog messages, and silence from the people who supposedly confirmed his sources by flying all over the country.

[Junkdrawer]

86. In Horns and Halos, Hatfield holds a press conference where...

he reveals that Rove was his source.

BTW: I had to get it from Amazon.ca...

[idgiehkt]

90. thanks.

even better.

[Sydnie]

73. This poster doesn't think it's too much of a leap to connect the two

http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=katsiva&comment=115059857988460158#1682226

[idgiehkt]

75. Elaine Supkis

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/
I don't know much about that blog

damn, even uses her real name.

wow.

I've always heard that Rove was the source of the coke information to Hatfield. It seems to me that that bastard just relishes destroying people for no other reason than the doing of it.

[Techno Dog]

79. wow

:crazy:

[Junkdrawer]

91. Interesting. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

85. A reporter is fed stories directly or indirectly by Rove...

The reporter's past is then used to discredit the story...

The reporter then goes on to lament how the incident is the worst thing that ever happened to him.

BTW: "You've been told several times.." is a gambit that does not sit well with this DUer... :mad:

[LittleClarkie]

47. "very good friends with Wayne Madsen"

And that was supposed to be good for what?

[Gin]

50. At the end of the day...............this doesn't matter to me one bit...

I hoped the story was right....I hoped Rove would finally get what he deserves...it didn't happen. I have been disappointed before, and will be again.

One day...these thieves will be brought to justice...I hope I live to see it!

IMHO

[Euphen]

61. This sounds like what he wrote after Salon fired him.

"Salon's account of the circumstances that led up to the removal of the Tom White story contains nothing but lies.

At this point, I wonder why Salon would go to great lengths to further twist the knife into my back. I suppose the New York Times will now release their version of the events. I can see the headline now "Jason Leopold Must Die."

. . .

Despite what Salon said in its account of the facts and in their note to subscribers, I stand behind my story and I did everything humanly possible to help Salon and the New York Times.

In the end, Salon and the NYT felt it was better to tarnish my integrity as a journalist rather than do their job and properly investigate Thomas White and thereby save whatever integrity they have left as news organizations."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

Obviously this guy has some problems.

[stepnw1f]

82. This Whole Thread Smells Really Bad

Drudge...? PUHLEEEEZE.....

[Sydnie]

96. Leopold has done a good bit of posting at Talk Left's blog

This post backs up a post that H2O Man made here not that long ago too.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015081.html#comment-227037

Posted by JasonLeopold
June 14, 2006 08:29 PM
I couldn't have said it better. All the while I was just trying to report the truth. I suppose other reporters may have been skeptical of the information. And knowing what I know now I would have been much slower in my reporting. But I still would have reported this story all the same. I knew the risk.

Even the Thomas White story I wrote for Salon years ago which is now being referenced as an example of my credibility issues was eventually proven to be correct. It took two years and if you look at the Jeff Skilling indictment you will see that every element of my report on White was included in the Skilling indictment. But no one bothered to say that my reporting was in fact correct even though it took two years for the truth to come out.

It truly surprises me, however, that people would actually believe that I invented a story like this out of whole cloth. I don't understand that kind of thinking. Believe me, I've gotten stories wrong before. Big stories. Every journalist has. I am not unique. Look at Mike Isikoff of Newsweek. Still, in my case I feel like Job from the Bible. And I am not a religious man.