Plagiarist Plays Investigative Journalist - Claims Rove Has Been Indicted

I don't know how many of you have ever been to the far left conspiracy ridden website called "TruthOut". The name is actually spot on cause they leave the "truth out" of every thing they write.

This so-called investigative journalist (who is a known plagiarist) has been reporting on the PlameFake investigation for months. Jason Leopold claims to have "inside" sources feeding him information from the Grand Jury. Leopold's latest claim is that Rove has been indicted by the Grand Jury for perjury and lying to investigators. He writes that Fitzgerald spent 15 hours with Rove's lawyer on Friday and the message to Rove was "you have 24 hours to get your affairs in order." Of course the inmates at the Underground are peeing their pants over this.

Who are Leopold's sources for his story?
-"high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting"
- just regular "sources with direct knowledge of the meeting"
-"sources close to the case"
- plain old "sources"
-"low-level staffers and senior officials"
-"a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee"
-some individuals that "requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly"
-more "sources close to the investigation"
-"some White House staffers"
-"one White House aide".

This is not the first time Leopold has made claims about a person's guilt utilizing such "sources". Even Howard Kurtz puts Leopold in a category lower than village idiot.

I think that it should be a law that if a "journalist" is going to make claims and publish leaked information the sources must be named. How do we know what type of person the source is? For all I know, it could be the janitor or someone like Larry Johnson who claims he knows everything. If a "source" is so big and brave to talk about classified info or Grand Jury testimony, they should be "man" or "woman" enough to back up their claim. This crap about "requesting anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly" is just the chicken-poop way out. You want to be the source and take someone down - you should do it in full disclosure - not hiding behind someone's byline.

If it turns out that Leopold is right, he and his sources of this information should be prosecuted. The way journalistic ethics are now, if Leopold is right, he'll get a Pulitzer Prize instead of the orange jumpsuit he deserves.