Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Questions for the Times on how it started

By Mark Obbie

ADVERTISEMENTS

Kudos to the Times for agreeing to answer reader questions about its work on the Spitzer story. But, because the message board was overwhelmed with more than 200 postings (some with multiple questions) in the first seven hours, I can't get a word in edgewise over there. So here are my questions:The New York Observer's John Koblin on Tuesday credited Times courts reporter William Rashbaum with starting the ball rolling when he got a tip last Friday. The tip supposedly was that the Client 9 identified in papers the government filed in court the previous day was a New York official. Eventually Rashbaum and others at the Times became convinced it could be Spitzer. Yet, in the chronology the Times published today, Michael Powell and Nicholas Confessore write of the otherwise routine court appearance on Thursday by the defendants in the prostitution indictment:

Just one fact piqued interest for some in the room: The lead prosecutor on the case was Boyd M. Johnson III, the chief of the public corruption unit of the Manhattan United States attorney’s office.Later that day, reporters at The New York Times learned of the unusual presence of three lawyers from the corruption unit, including the boss of that division and an F.B.I. agent from one of the bureau’s public corruption squads. The public corruption units often look at the conduct of elected officials.Within hours, the reporters were convinced that a significant public figure was involved as a client of the prostitution ring.

Who are the "some in the room" who caught onto this? Rashbaum? Or Alan Feuer, whose byline was on the original Spitzer-less story? Does this mean that the Observer got it wrong? Or are both stories correct, meaning that the Times started asking questions and was tipped that it was onto something? And how did they learn of the presence of other corruption cops in the courtroom?Today's Times story goes on to say, "By Friday, The Times was confident that the official was Mr. Spitzer." Confident how? Did you guess, and get hints or confirmation? Did someone reach out and steer you toward the answer? Final question: Any guesses on how long it would have taken the feds to leak this anyway?The last one is anyone's guess. Here's mine: two more days, tops. Answers to the other questions, I suspect, will be a long time in coming.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on March 13, 2008 (boomark / email).