Rove Lawyer Luskin Officially Denies Leopold/Truthout Story

[demobabe]

From TalkLeft: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014847.html

Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl Rove Indictment

Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, has officially denied the allegations in Jason Leopold's article reporting Rove has been indicted and that there was a Fitzgerald-Luskin meeting on Friday.

I received the denial directly from Robert Luskin this afternoon.

1. Luskin stands by his April 26 statement in its entirety.

2. Karl Rove's status has not changed. They remain confident Fitzgerald will decline to bring any charges.

3. There is "no truth whatsoever" to any of Jason Leopold's recent stories about Karl Rove's resignation, the alleged meeting in his office or the Indictment. The denial he gave me Saturday night was and was intended to be "all purpose."

4. As far as he knows, Patrick Fitzgerald was in Chicago on Friday.

5. People should not interpret their "unwillingness to comment on every wild and malicious rumor as a change in position."

[quinnox]

1. No mention of Rove indictment in news today

I'm afraid this story maybe another one that didn't pan out.

[LeftNYC]

6. If the MSM doesnt report it, i guess it isnt true...nt

[Scout1071]

2. This has been posted repeatedly today.

A little late.

[demobabe]

5. No, that was Corallo's denial

This is from the lawyer. Everyone was commenting that the PR guy would lie, because that's his job and were lamenting the absense of the lawyer commenting.

Now we have the comments from the lawyer. This is new.

ed: spelling error

[Scout1071]

20. Fair enough, but he also said that Rove never talked to Matt Cooper.

That was a lie as well.

Let's see what tomorrow and Wednesday bring.

[demobabe]

24. That doesn't mean Luskin lied

It is possible that Rove told Luskin he never talked to Matt Cooper, and that is what Luskin said publicly. We don't know for a fact that he knew otherwise. We don't know if he purposefully lied.

Lawyers are officers of the court and can be disbarred for lying.

This is not to say lawyers don't lie, they have to be very careful in what they say and do.

Patrick Fitzgerald knows for a fact whether or not Jason Leopold's article is fact or fiction.

If Luskin lies about the article publicly, how does that reflect on the rest of his ability to defend his client?

In short, lying about something like this would be beyond stupid and is seriously unlikely.

[pacalo]

3. And Scott McClellan denied that Rove & Libby were involved.

Numerous times.

[seriousstan]

8. Was he their lawyer?

[pacalo]

9. No, he was just a spokesman for the WH.

Looking out for Rove's interests. Like Luskin.

[seriousstan]

12. No, Luskin is Rove's lawyer. That is a major difference.

[KAZ]

26. Explain that that to me, in a non-sworn context.

Leaving out Demobabe's fantasies above (edit, #24).

[dogday]

11. And the President said anyone leaking

will not be working in the WH... They all need to be indicted....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. Good

Now put the delusional back in its cage, and let's all pay attention to the real world.

But, one more time - tell me that fairy tale about the fifteen-hour session Fitzgerald had with Luskin in Luskin's office. That was so rich and creamy and delicious.

Now, I hope these rumormongerers will shut the hell up and let things unfold the way they will.

How many Marines were killed in Iraq today?

How much did you gas cost you today?

How's your health coverage?

Got groceries?

[ruggerson]

10. But you're beating up on "Leftwing media"!

whatever the fuck that is.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. You hold it,

I'll hit it.

Deal?

[ruggerson]

14. Deal

;)

[rodeodance]

7. i had not seen Luskin comments (only him barking about it being 10 pm

in DC and was miffed people were calling him).

[Justice Is Comin]

15. Luskin is a

bullshitter of the highest order. He is the king of media manipulators. It's lawyer speak and his cat stool isn't the only thing that smells.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. Big talk .........

until you're in trouble and crying for a lawyer to help you.

You people are a riot.

Ever read the Constitution?

No?

Lee Atwater would just LOVE you.

[KAZ]

29. Jeez Leftie, it's a chat forum.

People have to vent. I think (hope) everyone has a feel for the right to legal representation and all. I haven't read a "lock him up" post yet. Just calling him out.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

36. "... calling him out ....."

Jeez, Wyatt Earp, who knew people used chat fora to ".... call (someone) out ....."

How ballsy of you, Wyatt.

Vent?

Ha.

[Justice Is Comin]

35. I don't know if you interpret

that as me disparaging lawyers across the board or as a profession. No I am not. This is directed at Luskin.

Luskin has been known to be artful at manipulating reporters, and quite prides himself in doing it. I have read articles about it. I think there are quite a few, if they were asked, would be happy to bear that out.

If Rove is indicted, and he has denied it to the last minute, so what. He has held off the tidal wave for whatever extra time can be bought. Same with his mouthpiece, Carallo. He's already modified his statements under pressure.

I wouldn't trust Luskins statements any more than I would Bush.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

37. Yeah, right

Sure.

You speak well of manipulation, but your feeble attempt to get your foot out of your mouth, so to speak, indicates that even the most basic communication skills elude you.

So, yeah, sure, you were just focusing on Luskin because you're so very, very familiar with his work.

You can't even figure out punctuation, but you're all right with disparaging a professional who is doing his job in a most impeccable manner.

Sure. Right.

Be happy in IgnoreLand. Life's too short for this kind of nonsense.

[Justice Is Comin]

38. If you want to fight,

fight with yourself. I stated my position, and explained it.

[0007]

18. He's not as good as James A. Baker III

I agree he is a bullshitter of the highest order. He's nasty man protecting the nastiest man walking on two legs.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Funny ....... Luskin's the guy I'd want on my side if I were in the weeds

He's mostly in our side. Being good, being familiar with the towers of power, and being a lawyer make for odd teevee newzers, for sure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601689.html

If you had a choice between a guy like Luskin and a guy like .... oh .... Ben Ginsberg, who would **you** take?



Just cuz ya don't like the client shouldn't refect on the lawyer. Hell, some of my best friends are lawyers.

Really.

Extra point trivia:

We used this guy once. Does that make us bad?

[samdogmom]

16. What if Rove decided to deal???

No imminent charges for him, but now others (i.e. Cheney, etc.) are in the extreme "hot seat"???? Maybe he had "24 hours" to throw someone else under the bus? Any thoughts?

[Skip Intro]

21. That's what I've been wondering...

another report claimed he was offered a "deal" --- there's more to that, but maybe he decided to deal

cheney would have to be why, but if Fitz offered him a deal, he wouldn't tell rove who he was after..

my head hurts

[tenshi816]

42. I've been wondering too.

Like a cockroach, Rove is a survivor. If Chimpy takes us into WWIII and nukes the planet, it will be Rove and billions of his six-legged brethren left.

Karl's the schoolyard bully, and bullies are cowards underneath. I'm firmly convinced that if it looks like he's really going down, Rove will rat out whoever he needs to in order to save himself.

[Radio_Guy]

19. Was Luskin under oath when he talked with that blog?

So why do so many believe Ruskin over Pitt and Leopold?

[Clarkie1]

23. Truthout, Pitt, and Leopold have lost a lot of credibility.

It's unfortutate. I hate to see that happen to good people on our side.

At the same time, I hate to see this site taken up with unsubstantiated rumors. Therefore, in the end a benefit from all this will be that we learn a little bit more about which sources to trust, and which to be wary of.

[Caution]

25. How have they lost credibility?

They can only report what sources have given them. If the sources are wrong what are they supposed to do?

[demobabe]

27. They're supposed to check the sources

And if they can't verify the story, don't run it.

In this case, the only sources credible to speak about this didn't pan out. Rove's camp says "untrue" and Fitz's camp says "no comment."

Hence, the editors should have pulled the story.

[Caution]

40. They have stated that they checked their sources

and they say they stand by them and that if the story turns out to be untrue they will reveal who their sources are. How can they possibly do more than that? For all you know one of their sources could be a secretary at Luskin's office who could lose his job over it, or a paralegal with Fitzgerald who is getting impatient about the boss' reluctance to announce the indictment. It could be anyone. I think it's a bit early to say they are no longer credible.

[KittyWampus]

28. Not report anything! At least, not til the corporate media verifies it

[Clarkie1]

30. The corporate media in this case has more credibility.

That's unfortunate, but the fact is the MSM didn't run a bogus story and truthout did.

[WiseButAngrySara]

44. "What are they supposed to do?" Look at your own NAME! CAUTION!

Or would you suggest that they 'throw CAUTION to the winds?'

They have lost credibility big time if what they reported with such certainty, and with so many ramifications, is false.

They should have used CAUTION, Caution.

[KAZ]

34. I'm going to hang with Will et. al, if it's all the same with you.

It's a complicated story, and I still feel it came out of the VP's office. Rove was running cover and will still get nailed, unless he flips.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

31. Just thinking about why Rove et al would deny the reality of an

indictment, even if it were true.

The main reason I can see would be to have some control over a situation they really can't control.

It would be dominating all the news at this point if it had come from Luskin.

I have no idea how it'll turn out, but I can imagine wanting them wanting to keep it under wraps till they were prepared.

[johnnydrama]

33. i don't know what's true

But it's pretty obvious why if there was an indictment, Rove and his people would not admit it right now.

It's called a major speech to the nation by his boss.

Tonight's TV and tomorrow's papers will be all over the speech, and they don't want bigger news
to interrupt that.

Now I have no idea what's true, but it's pretty easy to figure out why they would lie.

[usregimechange]

32. They lied to Fitz, why should we believe anything they say?

[demobabe]

39. Do you really think

...they'd be stupid enough to lie about something that Fitz has first-hand knowledge about? That would be idiotic.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

43. They already lied.

The charge is perjury, right? :rofl:

What suddenly gives you confidence that the Roving Rovesters are suddenly honest truth-tellers?

[Bethany Rockafella]

41. Of course Luskin would deny this.

He's Rove's lawyer. He would deny everything negative against his client. Think people. :eyes:

[demobabe]

48. He could have said "no comment"

but he didn't.

[WiseButAngrySara]

45. KNR and thanks for posting for us deniers 'til the end! ....n/t

[stop the bleeding]

46. I think any lawyer worth his weight would say the same thing

maybe I am wrong but I feel that a good lawyer plays all options available. I think that as long as this option is still out there then why would Luskin ignore it.

It would be like anyone else in any other profession ignoring tools at their disposal.

I am just trying to provide some insight on what the man may be doing.

[Left Coast Lynn]

47. That's good enough for me

Not.