Jason Zengerle admits three sources wrongly IDed an email by Steve Gilliard. One is AWOL and the other two just happen to have the exact same excuse.
http://www.tnr.com/...
"After returning to these two sources this weekend, TNR learned that when initially shown the three emails, both sources immediately recognized the 181-word Greenwald email and the 389-word Stark email; having determined that those two emails were authentic, the sources just assumed the 22-word Gilliard email was authentic, as well. We now know it wasn't. These were clearly honest mistakes on the parts of the second and third sources"
I don't think 'clearly' means what he thinks.
Source One goes AWOL. That is a hige red flag that the whole 'leak' is suspicious. Then, Sources Two and Three both make the exact same mistake. Zengerle has no way to know the mistake was honest. Two sources independently making the same mistake is inherently less probable. For all we know Sources Two and Three are working off a common cover story.
More importantly, there is no way we can call it an honest mistake until Source One is heard from.
Some key questions:
1. Did Source One suggest Sources Two and Three to Zengrele?
2. Do Two and Three have a known relationship / alliance with One?
3. Do Sources Two and Three know each other are serving as sources for the story?
4. Did they communicate with each other before coming up with the exact same explanation for their mistake?