The Times vs. The Post: Will the Grand Jury be Extended?

With the CIA leak grand jury about to expire, Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to hand down indictments tomorrow. Given the way this case has been reported--through anonymously-sourced and often conflicting leaks by lawyers with unclear motives and little first hand information--I suppose it's fitting that the stories published tonight by the nation's two major papers give very different accounts of what will transpire tomorrow.

The Washington Post reports:

Though there was considerable speculation
among lawyers for witnesses in the case that
Fitzgerald could choose to empanel a new
grand jury and extend his investigation, two
legal sources said he has indicated he does not
plan to take that route and will wrap up the
case today.

But the New York Times reports:

Associates of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President
Dick Cheney's chief of staff, expected an
indictment on Friday charging him with making
false statements to the grand jury in the C.I.A.
leak inquiry, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and
deputy chief of staff, would not be charged on
Friday, but would remain under investigation,
people briefed officially about the case said. As a
result, they said, the special counsel in the case,
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the
term of the federal grand jury beyond its
scheduled expiration on Friday.

So which is it? The Times account is much more specific, which makes it more believable. The Times also cites "people briefed officially about the case" as opposed to merely the "legal sources" cited by the Post. But, on the other hand, the Times account states that Fitzgerald plans to extend the term of the federal grand jury. It's my understanding that federal law does not permit a grand jury's term to be extended a second time. As the Post points out, correctly I believe, if Fitzgerald plans to keep investigating, he will have to empanel a new grand jury. Is this just sloppiness on the Times' part, or is their source full of it? I don't know. And isn't that just typical of the reporting on this case.