Oh, Snap: Rove's Attorney Refuses To Comment On Key Issue

[writes2000]

This is from DailyKos.

This could be the smoking gun. If Rove told Cooper that Plame was undercover, game over!

"Rove's Lawyer "Declines to Say" Whether Rove Knew Plame was Covert

by Hunter

Tue Jul 12th, 2005 at 14:29:24 PDT

Well, that kicks things up another notch. Yesterday Atrios noted this New York Times story which strongly hints that Cooper decided to testify because Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, was declaring in the press that Cooper should feel free to testify about Rove, because Rove had nothing to hide -- so Cooper took him up on the offer, much to Luskin's apparent surprise.

Now Jesse Lee at The Stakeholder points everyone to this LA Times story which states:


Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken.

Now that's interesting. Luskin was more than willing to speak to reporters about other particulars of the case that he felt helped his client: he's said Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information", and that "Rove never identified Plame by name and never intended to reveal her identity."

But when asked that very simple, very central point -- whether or not Rove knew Plame was "covert" -- he suddenly declines to answer?

Basic rule of loudmouthed lawyering in high-profile cases: if you have something that helps your client, you make sure it's known. Luskin is only clamming up because he either (a) has made it a point not to ask his client the question, or (b) doesn't think the answer is in his client's interests.

[whistle]

1. Uhm, that would be game over if Rove said he knew Plame was

...covert Cia, but why would Rove not know that if he knew she was in fact CIA and aslo that she was on the WMD side of things?

[dweller]

2. isn't that super-duper-secret -background-info

that Rove is not privy to?

dp

[whistle]

3. Well the president is privy to that type of information and since Rove

...is chief adviser to Bush he has executive privilege to anything the president has, I would think. That's where his power lies. By using his access in such a way Rove is guilty of abuse of power. If Bush has known all along, then they are both guilty of the same crime. VP Cheney has covered for Rove, so he's also guilty. Three birds with one crime, not bad!

[StefanX]

4. This sounds big

Atrios also picked up on it right away:

Declined to Say

Oops:

Luskin declined to say whether Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent, even if he did not know her name, which analysts said was a crucial factor in determining whether the law was broken.

Luskin is very careful to word his spin ("knowingly," "identified," "intended") to fit the statute (when feasible), or at least sway the public - or at the least avoid obstruction of justic charges.

By the way, like Rove, Luskin isn't that bright - he's just unscrupulous. None of the spins he's tried has even worked out that well.

- The "didn't intentionally" defense is contradicted by the six or seven reporters on Karl's get-Joe-Wilson list. And by the line: "Wilson's wife is fair game."

- Unless we assume bigamy, the "identified as the wife but didn't name" spin is blown away by the statute itself.

- And the "didn't knowingly" defense equals the "didn't know she was covert" defense - which seems to have crumbled now.

Luskin has had his own run-ins with the word "knowingly" too (and Luskin lost). He once claimed he never dreamed that the half a million dollars in gold bars he received as "attorney fees" from his mobbed-up money-laundering drug-smuggling client might have been stolen assets.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. "double super super secret"

or something like that...wasn't that what Cooper's notes were?

Oh, I get it now! Rove was telling Matt Cooper don't touch this thing with Wilson's wife because she's a covert CIA operative and that would jeopardize national security. Ooops!! :banghead: