Memo to TO: Lay off Fitz!

dr. elsewhere here.

I love synchronicity.

This morning, as I was finishing up a conversation with a friend of mine about some of these Rove developments (more on that tomorrow), I happened to see Joe's new post on the latest Truthout piece. There he was, landing in the same place I was, at the same time. Convergence. Cool.

As soon as I got off the phone, I read the Truthout article, and was impressed with the same things Joe was. With the single exception, however, of their call for Fitz to reveal the indictment. That part, I thought, was pretty, um, short-sighted.

So I emailed Marc Ash. Not that I expect to hear back from him (any more than I expected to hear back form Farhad Manjoo; still nothing), or for him to actually read it. But please allow me to share the bulk of it with you here.

For what it’s worth.

First, my support, and encouragement for you guys to stick to your guns. You were brave to take this risk and to now be taking the heat. Don’t back down. You know what you have is accurate, and you’re right to stick with it. Do that, but do it wisely.

I caution you firmly and passionately to NOT pressure Fitz to reveal anything outside his own judgment and time frame. Don’t EVEN try to shame him into it; what will this accomplish but to risk shaming him? STOP IT! In fact, that will only play into the rightwingnut impulse – already in play – to fry Fitz instead of the criminals here, so please resist that impulse.

Fitz is doing his job, and any such demand you make is insulting to him. He is NOT obliged to expose any sealed indictment to the public at this time; there are myriad reasons sealed documents exist in such cases. To remind you, they serve to protect the innocent (when that’s the case), and to preserve information that might tip an important hand to the other side.

In this case, Fitz is going after the engine of this runaway train, and so why would you want to contribute in any way at all to sabotaging his efforts? When you call for Fitz to reveal his cards in this highly complex game (as you acknowledged), you unfortunately expose your own need to get out the truth to save your backsides. While I can understand that you folks are under tremendous pressure and attack, PLEASE KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE BALL! It is entirely possible to stick to your guns without resorting to acts of desperation. Unfortunately, pressuring Fitz makes you look desperate and impatient; not cool, and definitely not in command.

Instead, place that impulse to force someone to save your backsides into shaming Luskin into sharing his letter. Or whatever it was. Of course, he never will, but that fact in itself will reveal worlds of information about these circumstances, i.e., he has so much to hide. Please don’t try to engage Fitz in a pissing match about the truth here; he is doing his job, so leave him to it and you do yours. That man, and by the way Judge Hogan, have more insight into why a free press is important in a democracy than most journalists put together (I suggest you reread – assuming you did read it once – Fitz’s argument and Hogan’s ruling on Judy Miller’s appeal to stay out of jail; she lost). And the reason is NOT to simply inform the public, as your impudent demand on him implies.

There is a larger purpose of the free press for a democracy, and that is to insure that abuses of power can be exposed. If the government manipulates the information to suit its lust for power, we no longer have a democracy. If Fitz can expose Cheney’s abuses of power, let him do it by his own strategy and timetable.

There are actually good reasons to keep some things secret from the citizenry, hence Plame’s identity as a spy, just for one example (which happens to be a huge point of this case, I’ll remind you). As a citizen of these United States, I don’t want to be informed about this point if it means tanking Fitz’s case against the larger machinery that lied and screwed us into this illegal and immoral occupation of a sovereign nation.

We must therefore be exceptionally careful here that we do not play into Rove and Luskin’s agenda. Luskin’s agenda is to protect his client, and it’s simply the case that he is allowed to deny a deal was made; in fact, he ethically canNOT reveal that, even if it’s true. Rove’s agenda is to at least appear free and clear so he can pull off his search and destroy campaign mission.

It is all so tricky, and I know we must also hold Fitz’s feet to the fire. But he has given us no reason at all not to trust him. And if you read the fact that he did not publicize a Rove indictment as such a reason, you are NOT paying attention to the scope of this case.

Rove, on the other hand, has given us ample reason to suspect (has he not, Jason?) that he is manipulating this the best way he can, so it is incumbent upon us to be not just stalwart, not just aggressive, but very very smart. Stand tall; don’t stoop to desperate measures; don’t make assertions or threats you can’t – or that won’t be – backed up (the indictment itself is dicey, as it can be dismissed at any time, and that would be that). Keep to your own simple points: Rove was indicted, there was a deal, Fitz was apparently willing to sacrifice a Rove trial to go after Cheney, with Rove’s help. “TO stands by these points, and we’re willing to let the clock play out for the next year through Libby’s trial to prove them out. Meanwhile, we remind everyone that the ONLY new information to come out on this case aside from our stories is from Luskin, who is a highly interested party, and who ethically cannot reveal any uncomfortable truths about his client’s status. If his communication from Fitz was so liberating of his client, then by all means, he should share it. If Fitzgerald was truly letting Rove off the hook, he would not have been so foolish as to include wording that might expose anything about the case. So we invite Luskin to share, show and tell, and we invite them to pop open the champagne and boldly declare Rove’s innocence, if that is in fact the truth here.”

Or words to that effect. But nothing more. Move along. Keep up with developments on the story. Respond to each and every attack on you with the same points in every instance, adding the occasional “well, Lauria apparently could do no better for a story than to repeat over and over again irrelevant details about Mr. Leopold’s personal life. Sure sounds like Rove’s at work here.” Dismissives to that effect.

In the larger scheme of this case, Rove will prove to be but a bit player, the glorified gofer he truly is (“Gofer the wins, Fartblossom.”). It will be worth forgoing an indictment of Rove to see him forced to take down Cheney by his own wimpout, all just to save his cowardly ass. God knows his ass and his name will thereafter be less than mud. Good enough justice for me.

You guys are sitting on the BIGGEST STORY OF OUR TIME, so don’t blow it trying to insist Fitz prove you’re right. Please, do NOT make that your agenda, or even a side issue. In fact, I suggest you openly retract that point, and assert the reasons why (mine are only suggestions; reasons abound). Return the debate to where it was before the Luskin distraction: Cheney’s involvement.

For what it’s worth.

That's also for all of you out there who persist in demonizing Fitz because he's not delivering the indictment as fast as you want. If this is a democracy, we do have to let the process work.

I'll of course let you all know if I hear anything back, though I don't think we should hold our breath. While we're waiting to exhale, though, tomorrow I'll summarize what I learned this morning. Nothing earth-shattering, but definitely confirming.