Leopold interviewed on KPFK this morning

(If you haven't read the previous post on last night's Jason Leopold article, read it first.

KARL ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED. Then, this post will make alot more sense.)

Jason Leopold was interviewed this morning on a radio show called "Background Briefings" with Ian Masters. (Pacifica KPFK) If anybody sees a recording on the web, PLEEAAASSEEE let me know.

Here's a summary from a couple comments by xyz at Firedoglake. (I have no idea as to the veracity of this summary, but, at this point, it's what we have. The typos were in the original.)

Okay I just listened to the Jason Leopold interview. Missed the beginning. Here are my chronological notes: leopold got serious level of level of detail.

fitz arrived at paton boggs (luskin’s law firm) at 11:30 on friday, spent many hours there rove was at the law firm also, with secret security spent many hours on a plea agreement that ultimately was rejected [leopold doesn’t say who rejected] at the end of the negotiations, fitz handed indictment papers to luskin fitz said at that time that rove had 24 business hours to get his affairs in order leopold states that he feels very confident about this information.

he states that a source that burns him will no longer be anonymous. asked about mainstream media, leopold says he isn’t sure why they aren’t reporting this, offers a few thoughts on this. also points out how ny times has failed, sat on the nsa story, etc. more notes to follow momentarily…

leopold’s confidence in this story is based on the level of detail that he has received about the paton boggs meeting, which he describes as “just too real” leopold notes that rove’s speech is off the aei website, but leopold has not confirmed anything with the aei. leopold states that he is an agressive reporter, but he would never get in front of a story this big without thinking and fact checking. leopold notes that his sources are aware that he would no longer be obligated to keep their identity secret if they led him astray. when leopold speaks with people at the white house, the tone is that they are loyal to rove, but ready to get rid of the cloud that he has brought over the administration.

(He's gonna out the sources if they lied to him. That's awesome.)

leopold stated that the announcement that bolton would be shaking up the wh staff came after he had been informed by rove that he was meeting with the gj for a fifth time.

leopold doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of a sealed indictment, as he states that he believes that the indictment that fitz gave to luskin was “sealed” because it was not yet made public, at which point it would be unsealed. this is not my understanding of the definition of “sealed”, so leopold loses some credibility here although he acknowledges that he is not a lawyer and seems confused about this point.

leopold believes the indictment will be made public any time this week, after monday, which is the expiration of the 24 business hours. does believe that it will be this week and not later. [so announcement will be made any time from Tues through Fri - we will hear somethign this week]

leopold stated that luskin, not fitz, was the one who requested the fifth gj appearance. [i’m not sure that we knew this yet here at fdl - although not sure whether i trust leopold on the legal stuff very much]

leopold closed by stating that he and truthout fully understand the significance of this story. this is not a story that he and truthout would go with if they were “not confident that the details were bulletproof” [he literally said “bulletproof”]

Again, this is a summary from someone I've never met or heard of, so take it for what it is. Also, the "24 hours to get his affairs in order" are apparently a business day, so maybe Monday, but probably Tuesday or later for an announcement.

Basically, it sounds like Fitzgerald gave him Monday to arrange bail/bond money and make whatever political moves he thinks are necessary(resign.)

UPDATE: William Rivers Pitt, the host at truthout.org where Jason Leopold publishes, puts forth a similar explanation of the 24 hours at Democratic Underground, and states very plainly that the announcement will probably be Tuesday. (Big credit to Reality-Based Educator for pointing me there.)

Also, I've been digging through comments at the few sites that are talking about this, and there seems to be great confusion over whether the 24 hours refers to one business day or three. I feel pretty sure that it's one day, which means an announcement late Monday/probably Tuesday because if you were going to give three days you probably wouldn't use the awkard "24 business hours," you would more likely say "3 business days." So, my bet is an announcement Tuesday.

Bush had better give one hell of a speech Monday night!