Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should Leopold Out His Sources?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:29 AM
Original message
Should Leopold Out His Sources?
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. if he doesn't out them he should be fired. period. end of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pale Blue Dot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OldLeftieLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Damn! That's Cold... Way Harsh!
:thumbsup: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Ooooo, SNAP...
OldLeftieLawyer, shame on you! :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
33. Don't sweet talk us OLL, tell us what you really think.
Love your comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. As in, "let's not get fooled again . . ."
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 08:32 AM by MrModerate
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
5. Absolutely
it would be interesting to know who they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoseMead Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsIt1984Yet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #30
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
9. wonder
how much Halliburton stock he owns now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. If this is a Rove trick (and I think it is) I say NO...
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 08:35 AM by Junkdrawer
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
12. Yes, that's what he said he'd do n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
14. If he wants..
.. to have any credibility ever again as a "journalist", he will have to. It's really up to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
15. Something I have wondered:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1414079&mesg_id=1414381
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moloch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
19. I doubt Leopold had any sources in the first place....
once a shady, unethical journalist always a shady, unethical journalist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
20. Yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sammy Pepys Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
29. Be funny if they were Luskin and Rove's mouthpiece.
THAT would be something I'd like to see! (Seriously!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
31. If he said he would, then, yes he should
The guy already has a credibility issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
34. I disagree with almost everyone in this thread.
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 01:28 PM by berni_mccoy
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC