This week’s coverage of the ongoing federal probe of US Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) underscores the point.
“According to sources with knowledge of the meeting,” Menendez’s attorneys met with prosecutors in June to request a letter exonerating the Senator as first reported in the Star Ledger. Now it’s very possible – even highly likely — that the Menendez camp was the anonymous source.
However, it is less probable they were the source that leaked Sunday’s Ledger story which claims the federal probe on Menendez is not being dropped and has been expanded with the issuance of new subpoenas, “according to people familiar with the command.”
The real question is how did the Ledger come to learn this information?
Was it the same source(s) who leaked information concerning the UMDNJ probes prior to the indictments? Are they also the folks who told the Ledger in late July that State Sen. Joseph Coniglio (D-38) was the target of a federal corruption investigation?
At least the New York Times raised the question of improper leaks of information in its follow-up coverage on Monday.
Of course, “Mr. Christie has declined to speak about the case…”
In his office’s defense, Christie aides reportedly told the NY Times that the U.S. Attorney’s Office is an equal opportunity prosecutor – targeting both Democrats and Republicans.
That may be true.
The question we would have liked the NY Times to have asked: Is the U.S. Attorney’s Office also investigating the possible improper release of federal information from its own office?