A few thoughts on Rove/Truthout/Ruskin and the like

Just my thoughts on 1) calling an attorney on a Saturday night, and 2) running really fast.

1) This one’s easy. It is wrong – dead wrong – to call an attorney on a Saturday night and look for “yes/no” answers. Everyone here wants Rove to be indicted - hell, I want him slathered in baby oil and dropped off on Cell Block D. This stated, the pig still has rights, and his attorney has the right to be able to conduct his own private life outside the bounds of his workspace. ALL of us have this right, and unless we on our own waive said rights then “personal time” should be just that. Imagine if Drudge called Fitzgerald on a Saturday night and asked the same question –the indignation meter here at DU would peg off the scale, and rightfully so. I’m quite surprised that some here believe that Saturday night is fair game. I have no qualms at all about using the “that’s how you get Capone” strategy with these bastards (in fact, I encourage it) but in this case the effort reeked of Republican slime tactics. I leave it to you to decide if that is the road you wish to take.

2) Truthout. First, an analogy. There is a well-known strategy in the game of financial newsletters, and it goes like this. Send out 100,000 newsletters to a mailing list. In 50,000 of them, predict the stock market will rise, and in the other 50,000 predict it will fall. Whichever way it goes, send out another 50,000 newsletters to the “winning” group, and split it the same way. You get the picture. Eventually, you’re gonna get subscribers who plunk down the cabbage for real because “this guy has been right four times in a row!”

Now, in no way is this meant to be a slam at Truthout (even though many will see it as such). It’s just that so many of us want to be right four times in a row that we look to jump instead of walk. Personally, I think it is a foregone conclusion that Rove will be indicted. Just from following the timelines and reading the excellent reporting being done by Truthout, firedoglake, and the like (as well as the brilliant work done by many here on DU), and by knowing the propensity of Republicans to drop dimes on their friends the minute the phrase “orange jump-suit” is uttered leaves little doubt in my mind that the time is very close. However, there can and should be discussion on whether or not Truthout (or any media source) has the story correct in so much as they state the fact as already fait accompli.

There are many sources here on DU and elsewhere that I value, and I (like many others, I’m sure) have spoken to them off-line to get their thoughts on things like how the grand jury works, what are the roles of prosecutors in such a setting, can a “sealed indictment” be used in this case, and so on. I trust their answers, and they have given me pause. Rather than have an enlightened discussion about procedure, and be able to learn how the process works, I have seen the discussion here break down into a clash of egos, as each side tries to prove street cred and put another notch in the handle. Speaking just for myself, I’d much rather have a legal question answered by an attorney, and a journalistic one answered by a reporter. When a reporter answers a question using an attorney’s notebook I tend to look long and hard at the response.

What do I think will happen? I think Rove will get indicted, I think the timeline won’t quite match what Truthout has already said is over and done with, and I think both sides on the DU discussion board will claim victory. Doorframes may have to be widened in order for swelled heads to pass through, whether or not said heads deserve to be inflated.

What we have now is a political version of the old Ken-L-Ration commercial – “my dogs bigger than your dog, my dog’s bigger than yours…” which does no one any good.

Fitzmas is knocking, kids, it’s knocking. But does it really matter who opens the door first??

P.S. I am widening my doorframe, just in case. :)

this story is curious in the way the media has not handled it. I mean other blogs do not have confirmation. And they have likely tried. So forget the MSM. The other blogs we trust as "trying to get the truth out" have found nothing.

So this story is out of the ordinary for how it has developed. And that gives me cause to say "hey - hold up! Take a breather. Don't set yourself up for a fall. Patience."

Cause really apathy is created by exhausting people emotionally. And that is not good.

We are awaiting the Rove Day of Fitzmas and perhaps, the Cheney Day of Fitzmas. And wouldn't we all like to see the Bush Day of Fitzmas. Just like other holidays, you just have to wait until they happen; but ulike other holidays, you can't mark them on your calendar in advance.

Well, to real journalists.

Further: If you call me at 10 pm on Saturday night and I don't want to talk with you, I'll say that in 7 words and hang up. If a journalist makes an incorrect inference based on a hang up at 10 pm on Saturday night, then that is the journalist' incorrect inference.

It shouldn't be surprising that it elicits extraordinary reactions among us. We are only human with all the variability that implies.

It is painfully obvious to many that Leopold has stuck his neck and his publishers' necks out very far on this one. I hope he's right, thousands of us hope that he's right. Rove getting indicted is one of our shared dreams.

When the second Leopold story popped up on the Latest page on Saturday it's not hard to imagine that a couple of ten or twenty thousands of DUers might have said to themselves, "Woo Hooooo! That's incredible!"

Generally that is to say it's astonishing, and it surely is. But in this case for some of us it's also quite literal. Leopold's two stories are astonishing to the point of challenging our ability to believe in them. I think any objective observer would look at the available samplings of DU reaction and plainly see evidence that, indeed, this story has reached the level of literal incredibility for a significant number of readers. These now incredulous DUers will question the story and seek greater confirmation, its their right to post those questions and thoughts as participants of DU. The story has gone beyond their capacity to accept it on faith in Leopold or Truthout or without any caveats. It's ok that they say that, it is after all exactly how they feel.

Let's face it, the very extraordinary remarkable nature of this story is going to continue to cause clashes between believers and doubters that no longer can really be reconciled through discourse. Each group is in different cognitive domains with different standards for credibility. It doesn't mean that either group is evil or stupid. Members in each group are only following personal inclinations.

Let's agree with what we agree with...this story is indeed remarkably extraordinary. When we find ourselves on opposite sides of the credulity divide rather than turn to ad hominem attacks and vulgarites, let's just agree it's an extraordinarily remarkable story that may be even incredible.

morsels of logic here.

The Leopold statement was very point specific about what exactly had happened. It wasn't generalized or speculative. It was direct that Fitz was at Luskins office for hours. It stated the charges and on and on.

This would be very pointless and stupid to make up and put yourself right in the center of the target if wrong. That makes me think the sources are there and I came to the same conclusions myself anyway from my evaluation of events as they have happened.

But I don't see that the 24 hour reference for Rove to get his affairs in order means that Fitz is ready to roll out this show in 24 hours.

1. The indictment has to be handed up to the judge. Last time that was done with media reporters present.

2. The Grand Jury was also there. They meet usually on Wednesday and Friday. I don't know if Fitz could call them in on Monday.

3. A media advisory is usually given by Fitz for networks to get their camera positions and reporters in place for the press conference.


To my knowledge none of this has happened.