Before you get upset about LUSKIN's claim that Rove won't be charged...

[johnfunk]

FACT: The single source for this story is Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin.

FACT: Luskin's claim to the press is in the best interest of his client -- and not the press or the public.

FACT: truthout.org says Luskin's claim is directly contradicted by multiple-sourced information -- and this morning said they are standing by the story.

FACT: Luskin had been spinning nonstop since Rove clearly became a "person of interest" to Fitz; now, suddenly, Luskin says he's not going to be discussing the matter -- clamming up, in effect.

Luskin is trying to "close" this story with one (hopefully, for him) last spin. Don't get spun like the so-called "liberal media."

[treestar]

1. I'd also like to know if a prosecutor ever promises any potential

object of his investigations that they won't be indicted.

That seems highly irresponsible. Fitzgerald could dig up new evidence tomorrow. You never know. I find it not credible that a prosecutor would do this, or highly suspicious if he has.

[emulatorloo]

2. FACT: Fitz office won't comment on Rove's status

If everything is as luskin says, why won't Fitz office confirm?


<snip>

Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=e40da3e03155858f&hp&ex=1150257600&partner=homepage


ON EDIT -- add "non-comment" from Fitz office

[Skinner]

3. Luskin says he has a letter from Fitzgerald.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html

If Luskin were lying about getting an official letter from Fitzgerald, I think it's safe to say that Fitzgerald would make some effort to set the record straight. He has declined to do so.

[dubyaD40web]

4. The word "anticipate" scares me.

[rodeodance]

7. yes. leaves a crack in the door.

[johnfunk]

6. Luskin did NOT release the letter...

From Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake:

First, the NYTimes article from David Johnston this morning. (And a hat tip to Holden for the heads up on the article.) If Luskin is coming out and saying publicly that they got a letter from Pat Fitzgerald which says that Rove will not be charged, there are two things that I want to see and know:

(1) what does the letter actually say, word for word; and

(2) does it say something along the lines of "Please thank Karl for his cooperation in this matter."

[lovuian]

32. Until I see Fitz's statement I'm taking a wait and see

attitude but the man did perjure himself on the stand!!!

[emulatorloo]

9. What does letter ACTUALLY say? Luskin a big BS Spinner - read firedoglake

Why won't fitz office comment if Luskin is right? NYT say Fitz office will not comment on Rove's status.

Read this firedoglake entry:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/dodging-cipa-graymail-bulletsand-other-legal-notes/

<snip>

First, the NYTimes article from David Johnston this morning. (And a hat tip to Holden for the heads up on the article.) If Luskin is coming out and saying publicly that they got a letter from Pat Fitzgerald which says that Rove will not be charged, there are two things that I want to see and know: (1) what does the letter actually say, word for word; and (2) does it say something along the lines of "Please thank Karl for his cooperation in this matter."

<snip>

Here’s what the {NYT} article does say:

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Well, that’s a bit of overhype, frankly. Rove was not the only person that Fitzgerald was looking at in the grand scheme of this investigation. And to spin this as the case being over is laziness on the part of David Johnston — and the media writ large, frankly — who have never dug into this case to realize that the players were larger than the Libby and Rove narrative frame that the corporate media types have conveniently used throughout the investigation. And that the be all and end all of the case was not the ultimate criminal charges, but the exposure of the smarmy underbelly of the Bush Administration and their standard MO of attacking, with a vengeance, anyone who dares to question them — even when those questions are not only appropriate but also expose them in a lie.

<snip>

[OKNancy]

13. Luskin is a good lawyer

the kind we all should have if we get into trouble.
As a reminder:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601689.html?nav=hcmodule

[JuniperLea]

20. Safe to say?

Isn't that speculation too?

Could this all be a ploy from the Rove court to force Fitz's hand before he's ready?

Fitz is the only fat lady in this opera, imho. No comment is no comment. Anything else is reading something into nothing.

[Jersey Devil]

22. NYT is the only MSM source saying there is a "letter"

Other than the NYT, I don't see any letter mentioned. Maybe I missed some, but so far as I can see they are the only ones reporting that.

Here's the MSNBC story - no mention of a letter:

Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won’t be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush’s closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.

Phone call from Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.


CNN says Karl "Rove has been told"

[treestar]

24. So who knows how he is "spinning" the content of that letter

[BR_Parkway]

25. seeking which charges against Mr Luskins client - if the letter stated tha

that Fitz wouldn't seek perjury charges against him, then technically Luskin is correct but spinning.

[dogday]

26. Fitzgerald does not make a comment either way

what would it hurt to verify the letter?

[johnfunk]

28. Fitz probably would not go public...

... but would deal with this quietly and behind the scenes.

It plays to a pattern, Skinner: I have two friends who work in the SCLM who keep complaining about how "frustrating" it is to "get any comment" from Fitz's office. When I told one of them that a special prosecutor--especially one working with an active grand jury--is duty-bound not only to keep proceedings and decisions confidential but ensure all parties not on the defense do so, one of them replied: "... but that never stopped Starr's people."

'Nuff said!

[Coexist]

33. Skinner - question

If Fitzgerald didn't set the record straight when asked about the indictment, why would he confirm or deny the letter? Serious question - not rhetorical.

I can't square that one.

Luskin needs to leak the letter to the press to put this to bed. I don't see a word coming from Fitzgerald either way.

Do you think Fitz would comment on that?

[hang a left]

36. No offense but....

when has PF or anyone from his office ever commented??

My feeling:

Karl has received immunity for his cooperation. I think he had no choice. It was either that or Fitz was going to have another news conference where he would comment.

IMO this is far from over.

Fitz has "something" over his head, he would have to. You couldn't trust Rove to keep his word. You would have to keep his word for him.

I am still on the wait and see program with TO and Leopold.

Card is gone.

Scotty is gone.

Karl moved.

Cheney is going down.

And if he doesn't. Well, there IS no justice left in this country to be had. No white knights and nothing to save us.

[global1]

5. Do You Think This Move Puts Extra Pressure On Libby?.......

It looks like Libby is being scapegoated. Do you think that the revelation that KKKarl will not be indicted puts more pressure on Libby to crack and give it up - tell all he knows? Do you think this may be a ploy to get Libby to spill the real beans?

[johnfunk]

10. No question - Libby's been thrown over the side...

The question is, will HE now turn on Cheney et al? I doubt it, but a political junkie can dream....

[dubyaD40web]

11. Yes.

If Rove is really innocent, then the WH is no longer on Libby's side. Unless Fitz nails Cheney, etc.

Libby might spill the beans then. Who knows?

[Jacobin]

8. Denial ain't just a river anymore

:eyes:

[emulatorloo]

IMHO anybody who takes Luskin's word at face value is naive. . .EOM

[Jacobin]

15. This isn't spin

This is an announcement about the fact that Rove is not going to be indicted.

He would be an idiot to make that announcement if it were not true. And Rove's lawyer clearly is not an idiot...A $750 an hour whore?, yes...an idiot, no.

[emulatorloo]

19. Then why won't Fitz office comment on Rove's legal status?

From same NYT article:

"Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status."

There is more going on here, and LUSKIN IS NOT CREDIBLE. IMHO.

[hang a left]

37. Weren't the words in the NYT article

"doesn't anticipate any charges being filed"

anticipate being the operative word here.

[seemslikeadream]

12. FACT

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

[emulatorloo]

14. Robert Luskin, Paragon of Truth and Non-Spin? Please . . . EOM

[seemslikeadream]

17. Oh he's a spinner alright

[OKNancy]

27. He's a liberal Democrat

don't shoot the guy for doing his job

[johnfunk]

29. So is Susan Estrich. So is Tammy Bruce.

'Nuff said.

[emulatorloo]

35. Fine -- but I wouldn't beleive Luskin if his tongue came notarized

w a tip of the hat to Judge Marilyn Milian.

[htuttle]

38. He's a mafia lawyer

http://www.nlpc.org/olap/liuna/failure/fail2_02.htm

http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=242

[liberalmuse]

16. You have a point.

I'm just dismayed at how willing some people are to attack Jason Leopold. I think it's unwarranted. I mean, if you think you have a great scoop from a supposedly reliable source, you run with it. Hopefully in the past 6 years we've learned to take everything with a grain of salt. My attitude has been, 'I'll believe it when I see it'.

[deaniac21]

18. Truthout has been as good as gold on this story. No reason

to give up on them yet.

I BELIEVE!!!

[still_one]

21. sorry, he wouldn't have mentioned it if the special prosecutor

hadn't told him

[garybeck]

23. B.S.

it is not in Rove's interest to make up a story that Fitz said he is off the hook. That would only anger the prosecutor.

We have absolutely no reason believe otherwise, other than the story written by ONE PERSON WITH A TRACK RECORD OF BAD REPORTING.

[Sammy Pepys]

30. But why would Luskin lie about that?

What's there to gain from putting out a story like that? You invite many more problems than you solve if you lie about something like this.

[Snivi Yllom]

31. now you sound like Jason Leopold

it's over

[Catherine Vincent]

34. I want to see the letter.

Or better yet a brief press conference from Fitz.