So, when does Justin Leopold out his sources?

[Rex_Goodheart]

As promised?

[Mikimouse]

1. Psssst, it's Jason, not Justin...n/t

[shadowknows69]

24. ~

Nope. Too easy.

[Mikimouse]

29. ?

[shadowknows69]

36. the joke I was thinking of

n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. Who The Fuck Is Justin Leopold?

And if you mean Jason, and just simply don't even know who the hell he is enough to know the difference, than maybe this thread is just bullshit.

[ariellyn]

21. LOL nt

[Kingshakabobo]

3. If you are going to post flame-bait, you can at least TRY not to appear

....ignorant as to the facts.

[Jigarotta]

please explain how this is Flame Bait?

I really wanna know.
A garantuan story was released, with certain promises of timing and exposing sources, etc., so far, no go.

why is That flame bait to you?

edit; minor tpyo.

[Jigarotta]

4. after 24 business hours on Neptune?

so you got the first name wrong, big deal. Jason got the whole damn story wrong, don't feel bad. ;)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Maybe He Did, Maybe He Didn't.

Fact is, you have no more knowledge to the facts of that than I. Hopefully some day soon we'll know more one way or the other.

[tuvor]

5. ...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Perfect pic.... love it... n/t

[LSK]

9. yeah, perfect pic

[BlooInBloo]

27. Thirded.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. This post was justin time to show how much you have studied this

particular issue. Shame.

[Rex_Goodheart]

11. I know enough to have read his article on truthout.org

then read an account of his radio interview where he promised to out his sources.

I don't care whether his name is Jason or Puttintame... I care that he fed us what appears to be a bad story... twice.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. He's testing you. n/t

[Rex_Goodheart]

10. Justin, Jason... who gives a damn

Why hasn't he outed his sources as promised?

[Richard Steele]

28. ...says the guy who demands that REAL reporters be infallible.

[racaulk]

13. Geez, tough crowd!

:popcorn:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

14. Some of Jason's and Will's most vocal detractors...

Seem to have gone to ground. Interesting.

[Mikimouse]

15. True, they must have fallen into...

the bottomless pitt.:hippie:

[DancingBear]

53. Some have

Some of us got tired of the battle.

Some of us can't believe what some others will actually swallow in terms of "waiting and seeing."

Some of us are just disgusted with our very own "29%".

Some of us like things in articles (like May 12th?) to actually be true.

Some of us really don't do the whole groupie thing very well.

Some of us are preparing for the June 12th "Is He Indicted Yet?" one-month anniversary bash.

Lots of reasons.

[Blackthorn]

16. Jason Leopold said he would out his sources...

...if the story proved false. Currently, Jason and Truthout are standing by the story, for better or worse. Why would he out them when he still stands by the story?

[Jigarotta]

17. it'll be four weeks coming up when Rove was indicted.

how long do you think it's reasonable to wait?

I think that's a reasonable question.

[Blackthorn]

19. And I gave an entirely reasonable answer...

...based on what Leopold himself has said. As long as Leopold and Truthout believe the story to be true and stand by it, then he will not out his sources.

[Catherine Vincent]

20. "how long do you think it's reasonable to wait?"

As long as he wants you to wait.

[Jigarotta]

23. but 'waiting' this long?

it was Monday, maybe Tuesday or Wednesday, but by the end of the week (of May 15)....
it would be confirmed that rove was indicted.

Don't you remember that, or am I making shit up? why does this have to be pete and repeated, no answers, but the questioners end up the shit disturbers.
I just don't fucking get it.

[Catherine Vincent]

26. You know you could find JL's email from TO and ask him. n/t

[Jigarotta]

30. I'm sure no one has thought of That....

and his email box is empty on the issue.

..........

[Marie26]

39. Yep.

They'd only have to out sources once the story is retracted.

[Toots]

40. I think he will out them in 24 hours

:shrug: Is that the part of the story they are standing behind?

[Snivi Yllom]

41. he was lying

lying about the story
lying about the sources
lying about outing the sources which probably don't exist

[Sydnie]

18. ......

[northamericancitizen]

34. Great..pic

[ContraBass Black]

22. .

[uppityperson]

33. .....

[zippy890]

54. add some hammerhead sharks to that pic

they're circling the now completely decomposed body of the dead horse.

[LSK]

25. anyone find out who JUSTIN Leopold is yet???

:popcorn:

[uppityperson]

32. Once someone does, maybe they can channel him?

Or read his mind and post about it?

[bluestateguy]

31. He should just take responsibility for his own fuckups

Reporters get jerked around by sources all the time, but when reporters run a story that they are not supposed to, it's the reporter, not the source(s), who is held accountable.

[Marie26]

35. You're assuming there actually are sources.

On Jason Leopold's proposed new book, titled "Off the Record" - "But the book's publisher, Rowman & Littlefield, has canceled "Off the Record" days before it was to go to press, despite having sent out news releases and listed the book on Amazon.com. The publisher acted after receiving a warning letter from one subject's lawyer...

According to a lengthy press release on the book's publication from Rowman & Littlefield, a small publisher based in Lanham, Leopold says Steven Maviglio, a former spokesman for then-California Gov. Gray Davis, "confided in me that he might have broken the law by investing in energy companies using inside information."

Maviglio, who now works for the California legislature, says that Leopold "just got it completely wrong" and that he never "confided" in Leopold. He says his lawyer sent the publisher a letter demanding that the material Maviglio deems defamatory be removed. ...

The Salon debacle in 2002 involved a purported e-mail from then-Army secretary Thomas White, a former Enron executive, which White said he had no recollection of writing. Leopold reported that White, while at Enron, had written: "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q." The online magazine initially said Leopold had plagiarized part of the story, then retracted it altogether.

Leopold told The Washington Post at the time that Salon was being "wimpy," but a Salon executive said the source cited by Leopold as providing the e-mail insisted he had never spoken with Leopold. (In the book's press release, the author gloats that journalists, including this reporter, "never bothered to check out my past" while covering his mistakes.)... Leopold says he quit Dow Jones Newswires in a dispute over his beat but later learned the news service was planning to fire him because of a correction to one of his Enron stories: "Seems I got all of the facts wrong."

Subject's Challenge Derails Reporter's Book Project - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.html


:popcorn:

[texasleo]

37. interesting

[Marie26]

38. Isn't it?

Pure speculation here. If Leopold made up his sources, that might explain why Truthout is still standing by the story. If they retract it, the next question is "who were the sources?" Leopold promised to out his sources if the story was wrong - so if they refuse to reveal the source then, it looks like they're covering something up. If they do reveal the alleged source, & that source denys it, it makes Truthout look even more incompetent if they'd never bothered to check the sources themselves beforehand. They could even face a defamation suit from the supposed source. Not good. No matter what they do, retracting the story will focus attention on the "six high-level sources", & maybe that's what they're afraid of. Maybe they figure it's better to just hold on, keep standing by the story & hope the whole thing blows over.

[yodermon]

42. except

Will Pitt, Marc Ash, Joseph Wilson, and Larry Johnson have all spoken to and verified the existence of these sources.
Therefore the "Leopold made up his sources" theory requires a conspiracy amongst the above gentlemen to lie baldfacedly.

[Sydnie]

43. Excellent point

In an attempt to lead Leopold to the stake for a good old fashioned burning, they are losing site of the plot when they make such statements as "He made up his sources". You pointed out their spin very effectively though.

[Marie26]

47. How have they verified

their existence? Emails? Leopold may have faked emails in the past. I think it's entirely possible that some sources are real, & some are faked, & some are real but didn't say what they're quoted as saying, or aren't as directly involved as he said they were. Probably the best clue we have here about what happened is Leopold's own past M.O. as a reporter. And given Leopold's history of confabulation & falsifying sources, I think we've got to say it's a possibility here. It could also be that he has completely solid sources that Truthout personally verified.

It's hard to believe that Truthout would accept a blatant lie & contribute by standing by the story. But, to me, it's even harder to believe that they'd stand by a story 4 weeks after the indictment never materialized. Regardless of the indictment issue itself, there are other factual errors that need to be corrected regardless (Rove's Secret Service, 24 business hours till made public, etc.) But no correction was ever done. Why are they sticking to their guns on this, w/no further explanation about why they're doing that? I think there's got to be some motive beyond just messing up a story to justify the odd behavior of Truthout's editors. The easiest thing would be to correct it & move on, but they're refusing to do that, & falsified sources could be one possible explanation why.

Sorry to be annoying, but do you have any links that Joe Wilson, Larry Johnson, Ash & Pitt have personally verified all the sources themselves? I'm curious. The editors would have (hopefully) checked the sources, but I don't see why Wilson & Johnson would do so? Joe Wilson, the ambassador, is fact-checking Leopold's stories?

[Sydnie]

48. Yawn .... this has been covered and covered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1183853

[Marie26]

49. Thanks for the link

I'll post it here:

Larry_Johnson (1 posts)

It is not just Jason Leopold. Joe Wilson heard the same from other sources. And, more importantly, Jason is reporting based on multiple, more than two, sources. His editors realized what a big story this is and did the appropriate checking before posting. They are called Truth Out for a reason. Getting the truth out.


So, we've got Larry Johnson saying Joe Wilson heard the same thing from other sources (not Leopold's). Johnson does NOT say that he personally checked Leopold's sources, unless he's posted that elsewhere. He's saying that he thinks the editors did "appropriate checking" - but he doesn't work at Truthout, so this seems more like an opinion, that they'd check it out cause it's such an important story.

So - Johnson did not verify Leopold's sources.
- Joe Wilson did not verify Leopold's sources (we only have 2nd-hand information that Wilson heard the same rumor from others.)
- It's not clear if Truthout personally verified Leopold's sources or not.

The link you provided actually states that Wilson & Johnson didn't verify Leopold's sources. Nor should they. They don't work for Truthout. Actually, I don't see that Pitt had to do that either, if he's just a writer for the site. It was the editor's responsibility to fact-check that story & verify the sourcing before it was published. Especially w/a reporter w/Leopold's background, those unnamed sources should have been named & checked out by the editor beforehand. So, it becomes important, because if those sources were faked or misquoted, & the editor knew this, Truthout was intentionally misleading readers & has a big problem. If they didn't check it out, they're just negligent. If they did check it out & it was verified, they were just duped & it's not their fault if the story turns out to be wrong.

[yodermon]

51. i was mistaken

to assert that Johnson personally verified Jason's sources, after re-reading his posts.

However, he does assert that Joe Wilson verified the story, independently.
He verifies it again, here: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014842.html

One last note on former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson's comment on Democratic Underground that Joseph Wilson received the same information as Jason: Some have questioned whether Larry really wrote the comment, or whether it was an imposter. I e-mailed Larry, and he responded, indeed it was him. He added,

Joe heard the same things but not from Jason. If these multiple sources are lying then I certainly hope Jason outs their a*s.

Which is why if Jason is just makin' shit up, then so is Joe Wilson (or Larry Johnson's hearsay about Joe Wilson is made up).

And, truthout has asserted over & over that they have talked to & know the identify of Jason's sources.

My point is that for this story to be bogus, there had to have been a whole lot of coordinated subterfuge by a whole lot of people, not just that wild & crazy maverick reporter Leopold.

[Sydnie]

52. It stands to reason that Johnson knew who Leopold's sources were

because he clearly states the Wilson's sources were different than Leopold's. Having two separate sets of sources making the same conclusive statements to two different people is a big part of the "wait and see" argument IMHO. Yes, sources might have mislead or outright lied to Leopold, but why would Wilson's sources lie to him? That makes no sense at all.

Ash, as stated by Johnson, did verify the sources. I would take Johnson's word that that had taken place. Let's face it, covering a story like this, I can only imagine that Johnson had been in contact with Ash to compare what they had heard and how reliable Leopold's sources were in comparison to Wilson's. There was no need for Johnson or Wilson to verify Leopold's sources first hand as they had their own sources who were supplying them with the same information. Again, I can only imagine that they "compared notes". I also can't imagine Johnson speaking in support (seeking out DU, registering, making his posts, verifying the post to TalkLeft ... )of the article unless he had been in contact and was satisfied with what he heard from those at Truth Out.

IF (and that's a big IF) Leopold's sources were wrong, then so were Wilson's. Wilson obviously trusts his sources as he has no reason not to trust them that I have heard.

Assuming that Truth Out didn't check the sources before publishing is just absurd. In the time that has passed since first publishing the article I am sure that Truth Out has continued to follow up on the story. If it were totally untrue, I can't imagine anyone would be more motivated to retract the story than Truth Out or Johnson. Neither have done that.

Wait and see what develops is the only sensible thing to do, otherwise, it is nothing but beating a dead horse in a vacuum. With no new info, there's nothing to parse anymore.

I'll put my money on Johnson/Wilson and Truth Out knowing just a bit more about what is happening currently than I do, and I will wait and see what develops in the future.

Leopold might have shot himself in the foot before, but I can't imagine Truth Out willingly firing that gun into their own, can you?

[benburch]

44. When does Justin Timberlake out his lipsync? nt

[meisje]

45. I thought it was Liepold, not Leopold

[yodermon]

46. When the following occurs:

1) When the indictees are revealed, and Rove is not one of them

OR

2) When Rove's indictment is revealed, and the date that the Grand Jury returned the indictment is revealed to be LATER than asserted by Leopold (I believe it's s'posed to be May 12 or 13 or earlier?)

OR

3) Fitz folds up his tent and goes home without indicting anybody.

The most frustrating scenario will be:
Rove's indictment is revealed, but there is no date on the indictment, and Fitz will not reveal the date that the indictment was actually voted on by the GJ. Thus no one can really confirm the veracity of Leopold's original story, but it hasn't been outright falsified either.

Wait & see.

[Blue_Tires]

50. why don't you contact 'justin' yourself and ask him?

this thread sucks, btw.......ibtl!