Lots of people are excited about news of Rove's indictment. I thought about posting something, but decided against it. For one thing, I don't consider truthout.org a particularly reliable source; I'd like to see some more substantiation. For another, I really want this to be true--and I believe we have a moral obligation to be particularly skeptical of anything that could be wishful thinking. So I figured I'd wait and see.
Yesterday, Mark Kleiman posted some skeptical questions about the story:
1. Who would have told Jason Leopold, but no reporter with a mass outlet, that Rove had been indicted?None of this is dispositive, but these do seem like pretty good reasons to remain skeptical.
2. If the rumors are flying around the White House, why does Leopold have a monopoly on hearing about them?
3. If Rove has been told that he has been indicted, why doesn't he quit to spare Bush the embarrassment of having current, rather than a former, Assistant to the President mugged and booked? Even Clueless Claude Allen could figure out that much.
4. If Rove told Bolten that Rove has been indicted, why didn't Bolten reply, "The President accepts your resignation to spend more time with your family with great regret and great admiration for your loyal service"?
Meanwhile, Jeralyn Merritt has talked to Jason Leopold; she is convinced he is sincere, but suggests he (and/or his sources) may be confused about the legal details of what's going on.
Bottom line: I'm really not expecting an indictment this week. Leopold has promised to out his sources if they lied to him, so on Wednesday we should know something more; until then, I'm assuming this is another non-story story.
[That's all, folks]
|