You'd think the NYTimes would have figured out the basics of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation by now -- but they appear to have screwed up yet again in today's
"Leak Prosecutor Wants A New Grand Jury."
This time it's reporter David Stout who f*#%s up the facts:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - The special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case announced today that
he wants to convene a new federal grand jury, a clear signal that the indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr. may not be the last episode in the affair.
"The investigation is continuing," the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, said in a court filing here. He said the investigation would now involve a grand jury different from the one that indicted Mr. Libby, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, three weeks ago....
It's really just embarrassing that David Stout and the Times have done such shoddy work on this -- yet again.
Jump for more.
Thanks to ReddHedd at
firedoglake -- who did what no NYTimes reporter has apparently done, i.e. actually pick up the phone and make a call to the Federal Courthouse -- many of us know that Fitzgerald isn't in the habit of convening grand juries.
He has used a plain ol' ordinary standing grand jury:
Is this a Grand Jury or a Special Grand Jury? What is the difference?
After everyone working for weeks under the assumption that this was a special grand jury, based on media reports, yesterday's article in the WaPo revived that question for me. Since there has been no sourcing in any of the articles thus far, I decided to take matters into my own hands and called the Federal District Court Clerk's Office for the DC Circuit this morning. Amazing how such a little thing as the telephone can prove so useful, isn't it?
As it turns out, this is a regular old Grand Jury. The Clerk with whom I spoke told me that "no special Grand Jury is seated at this point" in the DC Circuit....
ReddHedd is clearly a better reporter than David Stout: She got the facts.
One way or another, Stout has screwed something up. He's either wrong in his reporting that Fitzgerald will "convene a new federal grand jury" (he didn't convene the old one; it was a regular standing grand jury). Or he failed to report that the new grand jury, unlike the old one, is a "special" grand jury which will be convened at Fitzgerald's explicit request.
Why can't the NYTimes report the simple facts?! This is elementary stuff!
Does anyone know for sure if this is to be a new "special" grand jury -- or just a different standing grand jury?
David Stout and his editors certainly don't.