So. Is Jason Leopold going to out his sources?

I don't think he is. What about you?

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

:eyes:

:popcorn:

There are those of us who believe that those "sources" are the snakes permanently residing inside Leopold's head.

You wanna look in there?

<shudder>

is one that stands at risk of being wiped out if they put him on Haldol.

that we need to hear something more official than Lufkin...

Not that I think that Leopold didn't get it wrong, but Lufkin is hardly proof.

I didn't hear it, but he was on a radio show this afternoon and the reports posted here were a flat NO.

I honestly think he is some kind of pathological liar. Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_liar

Almost. But then he goes & lies again & I'm just annoyed. It does seem like he has some mental health & addiction issues that he can hopefully get good treatment for.

I keep hearing this and the only other snafu seems to be the 7 paragraph thing, which I've read his explanation for. Are there scores of other indiscretions? Why would Truthout keep him on in that case?

If you look at Truthout, there was actually a continuing series of stories by Leopold on the Rove indictment - first that Rove got a target letter, then that Fitz would indict, then Rove notifying the White House, then the big indictment announcement. All of those stories now appear to be wrong - yet they're still linked on the TO front page. Maybe someone should do a list of "misstatements", cause it's very long, yet hard to name all at once - first it'd be announced in 24 hours, then 24 business hours; first saying it'd make no sense to seal it, then the indictment's sealed; claiming Patton Boggs was shut down, claiming Rove has a Secret Service detail (he doesn't); first saying the indictment was handed over May 12, then revised to say only issued May 12, then revised to say the indictment was May 10th, and finally "the week of May 10th". First there's 6 "high-level sources", then 3, then one, then admitting it's based on the single sealed file that they think is Rove's indictment. Then claiming Luskin is somehow lying about Fitz's announcement.

And that's just this story & what I can remember right now. If we go into Leopold's whole career, the list is sort of staggering. Fired from Salon for citing an email that the alleged source denys sending, incorrect Enron stories at Dow Jones, book pulled after source denies saying the things Leopold attributes to him, etc. I honestly don't know why he keeps getting work. But, at this point, it does feel a little like piling on when he's down. IMO, it's more TO's fault for hiring him & then not fact-checking the stories he ran. (By the way, what's the seven paragraph thing?)

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me a dozen times, and I must be a glutton for punishment.

The wild inaccuracies of the reporting, the revision of key details, the refusal to admit any error - all consistent w/ the behavior of a pathological liar.

I tend to support Jason and truthout. There's a high stakes chess game being played behind the wizard's curtain.

I'm still waiting for a group of patriotic generals (and their boys) to come and drag all those mutherfuckers out of the White House.

Not advocating, mind you........just waiting..................................

Funny how people here tend not to believe the politicos and the MSM, for the most part, but go running back to them time after time for confirmation of things they have emotional stock in.

I'm sure I do the same, it's just that I try not to do it with the folks that have the longer history of "truth-telling", ROFLMAO!!!

:rofl::shrug::rofl:

Forgive me if I don't follow the true believers down the Yellow Brick Road.

coup d'etat. As rotten to the core as BFEE is, I'd prefer to "wait on" and "advocate" constitutional remedies.

But it certainly would be an interesting ethical dilemma for progressives. I haven't decided yet which way I would break on the issue of a military coup against a quasi-fascist regime.

And that Lufkin's word isn't any sort of proof.

I won't do that SERIES!1!!11 Hugh!!!111!! thing...!!! I am actually, sincerely, interested in what the guy said. I didn't listen to the interview he was to have given.

He really stuck to his story, to this day? Did he discuss his pisspoor timeline, and the 24 business hours nonsense?

I'm inclined to give people a break once, maybe twice, but this guy had a lousy track record before he wrote that article, which causes me to suspect his facts and his motives.

He got so many essential facts wrong, and I think, at a minimum, he should return to his "sources" and get some clarification. He oughta get them to go on the record, too.

I am totally serious. Wouldn't lie about something like that. (Or about anything else for that matter.)

I got this second hand from somebody who can stand listening to Schultz. I cannot.

Hey MADem, There's a thread about the radio interview on DU. Leopold did stick to his story (more or less) & didn't discuss any of the apparant errors. He's asking Luskin for the actual letter from Fitz before he'll believe it. He also stated that he would NOT reveal his sources & implied that that was Truthout's decision.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1417927

if the indictment story didn't pan out. Well, it didn't pan out and the sonofabitch still won't reveal his "sources." The guy is a certifiable nutfuckingcase. It really does come down to that sometimes.

Seriously.

I'm out of patience with this stupid prick.

saying that anyone won't be indicted. It's not their job, really.

And notice how the MSM jumped on this. They don't have a problem with confirming it like they did with the indictment story.

How could anyone believe Roves lawyer? We need proof from Luskin.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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

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

prosecutor to publicly declare a target will not be charged. In this case, the wierd thing is that Fitz continues to say nothing.

However, the more I read about him, the less decent he seems.

:grr:

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Unfortunately, the editing period appears to have expired.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

sup, CG :hug:

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

:popcorn: :loveya:

:popcorn: :popcorn:

IMO, the only way he could look less credible than he does right now is if he actually reveals his sources. My bets are on: Jason Leopold, Wayne Madsen, and Joe Wilson's cleaning lady.

Assistant to the Special Prosector M. Agicshroom


Lyser Gicacid, Robert Luskin's para-legal

and we can't forget the lovely White House communications intern


Absinthe Fairy

edit to add: in full disclosure, these used to be my sources (not for info, but for fun), but in keeping up with the fact he's still not over his felonious grand larceny, he stole these sources of information from me, so I'm still peeved.

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

Edited to add: Assuming he had any in the first place, apart from his fevered imagination ....

We still don't know that yet.

I personally think that Leopold simply got it wrong because his sources misinterpreted what they knew, but I would be really, really happy to be proven 100% wrong on this when the truth does come out.

:rofl:

... a sealed indictment is used as a starting point to negotiate an immunity deal -- even a limited one.

As I said, my own sources agree with Jason's on the gist of the story -- as you mock minutial details like a dutifur FReeper.