I have no idea whether the story is true or not, but I don't think we know if it has panned out yet...

This is an interesting item:

Leopold Responds to Corallo's Denial of Fitzgerald - Luskin Meeting
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014842. html

Leopold claims Rove's lawyers are lying and also includes this Larry Johnson quote:

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

This may not have escaped your average avaricious blog reader, but I think it adds some layers...

I too am skeptical. I hope my skepticism is misplaced. However, 24 hours turned 24 business hours, raises my eyebrows. It raised my eyebrows before it turned into 24 business hours.  Rove ain't going to jail anytime soon, even if he is indicted. Then there is Leopold's shaky history.

If Jason outs his sources as he says he wil do, it will be he said, she said and noting will be proven to anyone's satisfaction.

All of that said, I really hope I am wrong and Jason is right. I am just not betting on it.

Great post!Enjoy it very much!

Great post!Enjoy it very much!

There's a complete disconnect between the skepticism and willingness to parse when it comes to stories in the MSM that lefties don't like (the Wilgoren/Rudoren oeuvre, for instance) and the credulity given to stories that they do like.

As witness the incredible battle to defend the Killian memos long after it became clear that CBS had screwed up.

A healthy rule is: the more a story is what I want to hear, the more I should check it out.

Journos make mistakes, get carried away - themselves get told what they want to hear, and filter out the rest. It's an artifact of the process.

Bloggers go on about how great the sphere is for factchecking and being outside the bubble and free of corporate influences that blight regular journalism.

But the key thing about them: they have no editors. Which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending...

"we don't put out false information"

Except, of course, one of the ads running here.
Would be nice if we would see a pro Net Neutrality ad here, too. OK, no free lunch, I know. Maybe   George Soros would sponsor it?

I don't think this is about integrity in the blogosphere.  If this guy Jason is wrong he will be skinned alive and as it is most progressive blogs are more or less ignoring the story.

It may be just what we want to hear but it is not just Leopold making noises about an imminent indictment.  

There is also:

Matthews said something is happening soon on his show on 5.11 and again on Imus on 5.12
Leopold reported on 5.13 and is sticking to his story on 5.14 Truthout sticks by Leopold on 5.15
Joe Wilson also heard something on 5.13 said Larry Johnson and Jerylyn

Tom Edsall, Washington Post National Political Reporter on 5.15  "I think we will know very soon, perhaps as soon as early afternoon. No guarantee, however."

NYSUN and Byron York say no way on 5.15

DHinMI hates Leopold. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/15/ 184318/243/

Rove is a traitor. That much is clear.

As far as the special investigation goes, the trail is pointing to Cheney's office - Rove deserves only to be pointed out as a demagogue, and a shameless propagandist.

His recent speech that lauds the activity centered around a fascination with polling in this country, was in fact heartfelt. He plays this thing like a baseball game, memorizes polls like others memorize player batting averages.

Since Rove is responsible for George W. Bush being the worst president in the history of the United states, with his myopic focus on politics and not policy, we can again thank Rove for effing up what would be a great immigration package with that flashy, gawdy move to put soldiers on the border this week. A coordinated political theatre.

My vote is for the president's reform package, against Rove, and for indictment on the grounds of high treason: inciting unjust war, building avenues of information flowing out of the white house (the white house has given up more state secrets than any other administration in history),  slander and libel (against john mccain) and  breaking and entering (democratic headquarters)

After being sandbagged by the NY Times and crucified by Salon, Jason Leopold has resurrected his career -- by becoming a fringe story rumor monger. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as the reader brings their own salt.

Besides -- if Leopold were a wing nut, this would earn him a seven figure advance from Regnery publishing . . .

It seems to me too early to say that Leopold's story -- that Rove was served with indictment papers on Friday -- hasn't panned out simply because the MSM hasn't gotten the story out. They do, after all, have a reputation for not just getting things wrong, but sitting on stories and even spreading lies in order to help the Bush Regime. And Patrick Fitzgerald has previously been VERY accommodating to the targets in his investigation.

I'd also like to mention that, when I posted Leopold's story on the Breaking Blue feature of this site, it received this seemingly testy response -- "It's a RUMOR, not a fact."

"Rumors" are one of the things Breaking Blue is for........"Breaking Blue is a place for breaking news and polls, as well as rumors, chitchat, and general dishing on Democratic politics and DC."

Matt you may be premature in saying that Leopold is "wrong."  It might be helpful for all of us to remember October 2005, especially the week leading up to the friday indictment of scooter libby.  

One key lesson is that the target's lawyer is not a reliable source on the status of their client.  They will deny that their client is being indicted up until the indictment is publicly announced by Fitzgerald.  No one involved in the case is going to publicly confirm that an indictment has happened except Mr. Fitzgerald himself.  Knowing how things played out with Libby's team in the week prior to indictment announcement, why should we trust Rove's team right now?

Another key lesson is that the people who jumped all over Steve Clemons for saying that the indictment would be Weds. ended up looking foolish in the end.  Just because it happened a few days later than Clemons' sources said it would did not mean they were completely wrong.

All that said, can we completely trust Leopold?  No, and it is especially bothersome that it isn't being backed up by other reporters.  However, it is probably best to wait before saying "the rumors were wrong."  They aren't completely correct -- that is certain at this point.  But if an indictment happens this week or the next, you're not going to have looked good for saying they "were wrong."

Remember how day after day went by after the rumors really began flying that Libby's indictment was a sure thing?  By the time the first Fitzmas rolled around it had been several days since rumors began circulating about it.  We have precedent to believe that Fitzgerald would take his sweet time to announce an indictment even after it is already well in motion.  Jumping to conclusions so soon after the rumors started circulating this time may not be the wisest idea.

Is there any reason to keep an indictment secret once it has been handed down? does anyone have any knowledge of that happening in another case?

this is why I don't read reporters who use anonymous sources. Waas never did until this case.

And how is it possible not to understand the impropriety of anonymous sources in a leak case?

If there is something to announce, Fitzgerald will announce it. Until then we are just kids shaking our  Christmas presents.