WP: Rove's Legal Beagle

[steve2470]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/15/BL2005071500507.html


By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; 8:18 AM

I'd never heard of Robert Luskin before he became Karl Rove's lawyer, but he's sure getting his moment in the spotlight now.

I'm sure he's a fine attorney, and it can't be easy handling a supercharged case like this. But I've been wondering about Luskin's role since he started giving interviews on behalf of his embattled client.


When news first surfaced in early July that Time's Matt Cooper had talked to Rove about that now-famous CIA operative that Fox's John Gibson calls "little wifey," Luskin told The Washington Post: "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else," adding that the question remains unanswered: "Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl."

This answer now seems to be a) hair-splittingly legalistic, b) misleading, or c) flatly untrue. You decide. Depends on the meaning of the word "disclose," I guess.

<SNIP>

[napi21]

1. It's strictly legal speak!

Whenever you hear a lawyer talk, you have to listen to EVERY WORD! Each one means something individually that could be misleading collectively.

I've dealt with far mor attorneys in my life than I every wanted to, and, except for the really bad or sloppy ones, are all VERY GOOD at this legal speak. It's primarity the same thing as "the meaning of is is".

[FreedomAngel82]

2. Seems to be the case

They know that Rove is guilty. By their speaks it seems to be the way. Me thinks he does protest too much. You don't hear Fitzgerald or anybody else speaking. Matt Cooper spoke for himself. Why can't Karl Rove?

[napi21]

4. In fairness to Lufkin, all good attorneys tell their clients to shutup!

They tell you to let ME do the speaking for you, just for the very reason stated. You never let your client talk because they almost always say something stupid that will incriminate them.

Cooper spoke for himself for two possible reasons. He knew he was telling the truth and only had one incident to talk about, and his employer already published his internal notes which also agree with his testimony. He really doesn't have anything to loose or screw up.

[Sapphire Blue]

3. One thing really bothers me about Rove's attorney & reaction to him...

Why on earth is anyone taking Rove's attorney's words as fact/truth??? He is an attorney, defending his client... same as OJ's attorney, Scott Peterson's attorney... were their attorneys telling the truth???

His attorney is a legal spin doctor... and this stinking spin is being accepted/promoted as truth. :puke:

[Village Idiot]

5. I winder how Rove will pay him?

One of Luskin's former clients, apparently involved in drugs and money-laundering, paid Luskin over $500,000 IN GOLD for his legal defense...