Luskin cannot be lying...

[SteppingRazor]

see what you think.

1) Luskin is a Democrat.
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=DC&last=luskin&first=robert


2) Luskin could be disbarred, destroying his career, for lying about this
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_4_1.html


3) Since Luskin is not a partisan nut willing to throw away his career to defend Rove, he cannot be lying about this.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. What lamebrain thinks Luskin is "lying"?

Jesus, people, give up your delusions about Jason Leopold and Karl Rove.

The party's over. Rove isn't indicted, because - this might be a hard thing for some people to understand - there is no proof that he broke the law.

Move on, nothing to see her, let it go. Take off the tin foil hats and dwell with us on the planet of reality.

And, if your state is having a primary today, don't forget to vote!!!

[SteppingRazor]

3. I completely agree, but HEAPS of people are saying...

that Luskin's lying, and TO and Leopold will be proved right in the end. I'm just trying to point out the absurdities involved in this argument.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. Oh

Gotcha.

Heaps of people have a whole other agenda - they need to have heroes, even when their "heroes" are terribly, fatally, and quite bitterly mortal.

I guess reality is too simple for them. Or something.

I like the concept of "TO and Leopold will be proved right in the end."

Do they know that "the end" has come and gone?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

87. What specifically

are you directing attention to at the site the link goes to?

[Pale Blue Dot]

2. It's not just that.

There is no legal reason for him to lie about this. There is no way that the act of lying about this would help his client.

[Epiphany4z]

4. he is not lying

he got a letter I am sure. I always knew there was more of a chance Rove would walk than the other way around he is sleazy not stupid. Why he is off the hook is something that would be interesting to really know we may never get to know though..His attorney doesn't have to tell us shit just the bits he wants to. It suck..I agree but it is what it is the fat ass sleaze bag is walking.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. Read the law Fitzgerald was charged with enforcing

Go read up on it, and read about what it's like, and how impossible it is to enforce.

Lots of newspapers and periodicals wrote about this at the beginning. You'll see how complicated it all is, and why Libby has only been charged with perjury, a tangential offense.

It's nothing political. It's just a bad, bad law that is badly drafted and impossible to enforce.

It's all there. Go read up on it. You'll see, and you'll feel better. I promise you.

[Epiphany4z]

36. I agree

you are correct about how bad the law is and how it is written to make it near impossible to get the sleaze bag. I just think something was going on the week TO had there story out that same week cable news was all set up to work late and do the Rove story but for some reason nothing ever came of it. I think TO got wind of something so did the cable news ..it seems they got sloppy with whatever really happened I wont dispute that..but I still think something was happening. I don't think we will ever really know...and it stinks..because everyone knows Rove was knee deep in it even the repubs but that is what they like about him.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

No, I think you were fooled

Jason Leopold's story was bullshit from beginning to end, and now it's ended. You wanted to believe - lots of people did - and you believed and got lied to by a con artist with a very, very bad history of being unable to tell the truth.

Now, it really is time to let this matter go, because, honestly, it's irrelevant compared to the other things that matter so much in our country right now, and if Joe Wilson wants to pursue it as a civil matter, it's his baby, he can rock it.

Rove is no longer relevant, except insofar as how he will affect the November elections, and that's why people like us have to leave the Leopold/truthout/Rove stuff behind and get busy working for the candidates we support.

[Epiphany4z]

59. It is possible I was fooled

the only reason I put any stock in it at all is what was going on with the cable news guys at the same time. I could be wrong ..I think something happened that week thought..all in all does it matter? the guy is walking.

I agree we need to get working for the candidates I am a step ahead on this I joined the local Dem group here in Ohio during the RON campaign and have stayed active we have been busy Raising money for our PAC and working to get our guys elected.

I can work to get our candidates elected and indulge in a bit of grumbling over Roves sleazy ass getting a free pass again for a day or two though.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

65. Grassroots, baby.....

that's where we get things done. Good for you.

I voted for Jim Webb today in VA's Democratic primary - the first step towards kicking out that monstrous George Allen here in Mr. Jefferson's Commonwealth.

Good for us. Grumble 'til you feel better, and know that you've got my admiration.

[Epiphany4z]

77. Thank you

I needed a little admiration today...oy what a day...

[robbedvoter]

39. And your pal KKKarl hasn't perjued himself? To the investigators?

Funny what a defense you're mounting.

[Epiphany4z]

47. Hu?

what defense? who is defending him?

[robbedvoter]

64. OLL keeps telling us Rove is innocent and "the Wilsons jumped the shark"

I am questioning motives. And if perjury was solid enough for Libby, how comes it's not for Karl whose lies to the investigators were even more public?

[Epiphany4z]

73. I keep hearing he had

a little help from woman reporter Novak? she tipped off his attorney...who knows...It is a done deal I hate it ..it sucks...I don't know what else to say..I sure would like to know what exactly happened but I ain't gonna hold my breath...I plan to bitch and moan about about for a day or two then get back on the horse and keep working to get more Dem's in office.

[Igel]

129. I think the problem is that

we have no evidence that Rove perjured himself under oath.

The logic has to be thus: Fitz will seek an indictment if and only if he has sufficient evidence to convict or coerce Rove. Keep in mind that 'if and only if' (IIF), it's crucial. He'd seek an indictment against a ham sandwich if *and only if* there was a good chance, based on the evidence, of either convicting the comestible, or getting it to rat on the neighboring cheese sandwich. Otherwise it's a waste of his time and the jury's, and unethical.

He might seek an indictment for the sake of getting an indictment. He could play politics. That's why the IIF is crucial. I assume he wouldn't do that.

Fitz has decided not to seek an indictment, it would seem, given current circumstances. This means that he does not believe he currently has sufficient evidence to convict or coerce (or, possibly, to get an indictment). Fitz quite probably has about all the information he's going to get; he's looked it over, his staff has looked it over. The bar for convicting under the 'exposing covert agent' law is very high; it's hard to have that much evidence. We don't have evidence about any of Rove's perjury. We have off-the-record statements; but those are meaningless.

Nobody's saying Rove is innocent. That would also require more evidence than we have. All that can be said is that Fitz apparently does not believe he has sufficient evidence to convict, i.e., Fitz believes that were he to take his case to the jury, Rove would be handed a 'not guilty' verdict.

This is not a defense of Rove, per se. It's an evaluation of the implications of Fitzgerald's conduct, given likely assumptions, and appraising the level of admissible evidence we actually have.

[theboss]

131. I do believe you have nailed it

Fitz simply can't make a case. It happens every day.

[hang a left]

113. Yeah and Libby is only charged with perjury.

She forgot about obstruction and lying to the FBI and the 30 years hanging over his head in an airtight case.

[theboss]

5. Attorneys simply don't lie about provable things

If Rove gets indicted tomorrow, Luskin would be - in a word - screwed. He is not going to risk his career on a statement like this.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. He was given permission by Fitzgerald

to release that statement.

You'd better believe it.

[theboss]

12. Of course, I do

I'm not insane.

[papau]

29. I actually do think that likely - but I'll wait to see the actual letter

n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. Huh?

You getting a copy of it faxed to your office?

Wow.

You must be really special.

[patcox2]

57. I want it Personally delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury!

He must be riding on a piebald pony, and must present it with a wax seal sealed with his episcopal signet ring. Only then will I believe. Till then I stand with Leopold with Every Fiber of my Being! And as many other sophomoric cliches I can think of! Then I shall play some more dungeons and dragons!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

58. You're wearing crinolines,

aren't you?

[patcox2]

67. Not where anyone can see them.

I once represented a stream of strippers, too. Ever notice that divorces are contagious? One woman gets divorced, it inspires her friends. So I got a series of stripper divorce cases. Great judges around here, for purposes of custody, they could care less what the women did for a living.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

72. Same here

It really does cascade.

I loved my whores. They'd bring me lunch and tell me stories.

Bikers. They were great clients, too. Always plastic bags with cash. They cleaned up good, too.

[papau]

83. Thank God my daughter has left defense for estate planning! She

also had stories, but I feel better that the clientele are now just rich scum, rather than violent or drugged and caught with drugs scum.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

92. Good for her

She'll end up like I did one day, standing on a rim in the Shenandoah Valley, with a very wealthy client's ashes all over my new dark blue Ralph Lauren cashmere coat, having executed his last wish just as a goddamned updraft appeared out of nowhere.

Nothing in the law is safe, I tell you. Nothing. I had to have Bernie cleaned out of the coat four times.

[papau]

97. LOL - I'll warn her! :-)

:-)

[patcox2]

116. Hey, have you seen this Partridge guy's stuff?

I swear, he's channeling Pitt! Lots of stand-taking and standing by and boldly speaking truth to power before the final descent to fascism is complete! Heroic! Dramatic! Last Stands! Defying things and throwing down gauntlets and running gantlets, and always to the last drop of blood, the last ounce of strength, yea even to his dying breath, and even then, with every fiber of his being! I wonder if he'll do in a pinch, for the handmaidens?

[papau]

74. we have a verbal report so far - wording is important - prior letters

have been released. A "no bill" has not been voted.

Is this a promise by Fitz to not ask the GJ to vote on Rove? I thought a GJ could vote without the Prosecutor requesting such a vote.

[robbedvoter]

45. Again, are you Luskin?

You seem to have both intimate knowledge and identity of POV/goals.
Attack the Wilsons, ridicule anyone who wrote/supported about Rove's indictment and attempt to claim his innocence.

[theboss]

49. I am an attorney

And not one of us would make such a statement without some basis. It would be suicidal for us and our clients.

[robbedvoter]

55. So am I. And followed OLL attacking the Wilsons, defending Rove

for some time now.
I am not questioning Luskin's statement, just OLL's business on DU.

[theboss]

61. And she's been right about everything so far

I think there is a need for sane posters on this site.

[robbedvoter]

75. So...Rove is innocent, right? okey dokey - that much sanity I don't need

But you can enjoy your little personal vendetta and call it whatever you wish. I know where my priorities are.

[theboss]

84. Innocent of violating the statute as written? Probably

He's guilty of being a scumbag. Unfortunately, that is not a crime.

[robbedvoter]

90. Probably? Did you read the facts at the link?

Is your little personal vendetta really superceding the whole W lied us into war "unpleasantness"? Wow!
Glad there's celebration at your house. Will you be sendinf KKKarl a "glad you beat the rap" FTD bouquet?

[theboss]

93. What does this have to do with the war?

W lied us into war.

This about whether a statute was violated in "outing" Valerie Plame.

The two are really only tangentally related.

That's been the problem with this site's view of the Fitzgerald investigation from the beginning: Fitzgerald is not Ken Starr. He is annoyingly precise in following his exact responsibilities. This was never going to be about the Iraq War.

[robbedvoter]

103. Karl told the truth to investigators who came at the WH in 2003?

Under oath, that is. He confessed to his role, right? All righty then.

[theboss]

105. If he did, Fitzgerald can't prove it

I don't know where you are going with this.

I stated a long long time ago that I wanted Rove to be indicted. But I also did not think it was very likely.

And I also have an aversion to falsehoods in general, whether they come from people I agree with most of the time or not. And this Leopold story annoyed me because it was clearly false from day one. Yet, people desperately clung to it based on their own desires rather than facts.

I like facts. Facts are stubborn things.

Today, the fact would be that Leopold either flat-out lied or is an awful reporter.

The other fact would be that regardless of what Karl Rove has done or has not done, Fitzgerald does not have enough evidence to indict him. And, yes, I find that somewhat depressing.

[robbedvoter]

107. I don't know Fitz's reasons - or even his plans. Never heard from him.

And I certainly don't assume willful fabrication from Leopold. That's where we clearly part ways - I won't argue the matter until all the facts are in.
What I do know is that Karl is guilty, and those who advocate his innocence have lost their sense of right and wrong.

[theboss]

110. I am not advocating his "innoncence" in any moral sense

I'm not even advocating his innoncence in regards to outing Plame. I just don't think you could prosecute anyone under that statute.

And since I have no idea what he said under oath before the grand jury, I am certainly not going to speculate on whether he committed perjury.

[Marie26]

100. What if it's true?

Does loyalty trump reality?

[robbedvoter]

109. Did he tell the truth to the investigators in 2003? I recall the opposite

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=917053
FACT: ROVE AND WHITE HOUSE MISLED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OVER ROLE IN CIA LEAK:  Asked on Sept. 29, 2003 whether he had "any knowledge" of the leak or whether he leaked the name of the CIA agent, Rove answered "no." That same day, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, after having “spoken to Karl,” asserted that "it is a ridiculous suggestion" to say Rove was involved in the leak. In Aug. 2004, Rove maintained, “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.”

[Marie26]

121. This is Luskin

The big-shot, smart lawyer representing Rove. I've yet to hear a convincing reason why Luskin would lie about this, & the OP did a good job of outlining the reasons he would not. Is it possible that Fitz did notify Luskin that he won't press charges against Rove?

[robbedvoter]

125. Not saying he's lying - it's a nice vague statement that does NOT

exonerate Rove. Fitz's word is missing.
To wonder about "Luskin motives" is really funny. Not saying it's a lie, but sounds like obfuscation to me.

[Marie26]

127. It pretty much does

Most important point:

- No denial from Fitzgerald's office. That's Fitz's word on the matter. If it were a lie, he'd be denying it.

- To wonder about Luskin's motives is the essential question here. It's why we know the claim is true. How, why, would a prominent attorney make up such a blatant lie? It does exonerate Rove, for the present, & says that no indictment was issued in the past. Why would Luskin make something like that up, and why wouldn't Fitz deny it? These are the questions that lead to the (IMO) inevitable conclusion that the notification is real.

[robbedvoter]

132. No exoneration whatsoever. Why is DU going further than Luskin?

Liskin never commented on Karl's guilt (or its absence), yet you guys are preparing " is a little pure angel" :puke:
I wonder why? :shrug:

[Marie26]

133. Exoneration from indictment

Is not the same thing as pure innocence. It simply means he wasn't indicted - that's what the notification meant. Maybe he did leak Plame's name, & maybe he's an awful person. That isn't the point. The question here is simply: Was he indicted by the grand jury? NO. Are you expecting Luskin to say his client is "absolutely innocent" ... or guilty? Why would he when his client hasn't been charged with a crime? There's no need to claim innocence when there's no charges. He simply stated that Rove hasn't been indicted & Fitz does not anticipate an indictment in the future. Where on earth are you getting that people on DU are saying Rove "is a pure little angel?" I get these responses often, & it always boggles me. Like, I'll say "Leopold was wrong," & the response is "how dare you support Rove!" & I think maybe we're having 2 entirely different conversations.

[robbedvoter]

134. "doesn't anticipate" IS NOT exoneration. "SHALL NOT INDICT"

would maybe accomplish that. "Does not anticipate" suggests a deal, an "as long as..." (he cooperates) or something. That statement doesn NOT in any way imply that Fitz does not have the goods on him or that Rove didn't commit a crime - LITERALLY.
Only the DU cheerleaders following the Wilsons hater lead understand that.

[Marie26]

99. Exactly. nt

[hang a left]

115. Is that kind of like when Luskin said....

"if Cooper is going to jail it's not Karl he's protecting"?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marie26]

130. Aren't they actually friends?

I remember reading this somewhere. Can someone help me out with that?

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Then show the letter

It's very simple for him to either produce the letter or have his client, Rove make a statement that he has been cleared. Until one or the other happens I would be wary of anything Luskin says or does.

[theboss]

15. Why?

What value is there in lying?

Frankly, I don't think Luskin has any obligation to show anything. He defended his client and apparently did a very good job.

[IsIt1984Yet]

48. Why should he release it? To appease the six DUers who bought

Leopold's story?

Heh...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

52. ::::: WILD APPLAUSE :::::::

I'm thinking of them now as "The Brides Of Dracula," the ones who come out at their master's bidding, getting their little nips in.

Then they get back in their coffins until they're summoned again.

Hell of a life, I should think ..........

[IsIt1984Yet]

60. It's over, Johnny.

This has gotten so FUCKING ridiculous. Wake the fuck up, people! I have been called a GOP plant for calling "bullshit" on this story.

I don't care if Leopold is Jesus himself, he FUCKING LIED! At BEST, he didn't properly verify the story he wrote - at worst, it was a drug induced delusion.

Jesus fucking Christ - ENOUGH!

[patcox2]

81. Once bitten by the prince of darkness they need a steady diet of . . .

Cliches! Dramatic cliches that evoke images of Heathcliff out on the moors, standing with things with every fiber of his being! His words like the weapons of a knight of yore, he girds his loins and mounts his charger to assault the castle of the prince of darkness! With every fiber of his being! Then after smiting the evil one, he will return to me, his lady faire, and make love to me,with every fiber of his being! For I am princess buttercup!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

89. What the hell did you put in the spray starch?

That's IT!!!!

NO MORE IRONING FOR YOU!!!!

So, you think some of these Brides are feeling sort of like this today?

[berni_mccoy]

104. You're kidding right...

Lawyers don't lie about provable things....

hmmm...

[rich4468]

8. Jason Leopold still standing by his story

Jason Leopold was just on Ed Schultz's show in LA and basically said the following:

A) He is still in contact with his sources and they are telling him that nothing has changed.

B) He stands by his story (as does truthout.org)

C) He does not plan to out his sources if he hears from Fitzgerald that what Luskin is saying is true.

Either the guy is getting some next level information or he's getting the runaround or he's just completely unhinged...

Whatever it ends up being it was an interesting interview... he's scrambling to restore his reputation and try and figure out what's going on.

[theboss]

16. My money is on "unhinged"

Look at his history. He is not the most stable of gents.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. The guy's a certifiable head case

Why do people insist he's not?

[patcox2]

19. His "sources?" Who, his neighbor's labrador retriever?

Who tells him to go out and kill?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

35. Oh, nice

Mocking David Berkowitz will get you NOWHERE, you HEAR ME?

My parakeet knows where you are.

Live in fear.

[karlrschneider]

28. He promised to 'reveal the sources'...so he lied about THAT too.

the kool-aid around here is the same shit the wingnuts drink.
:eyes:

[onenote]

62. have JL's "sources" confirmed that Luskin is lying?

I didn't hear JL make that claim? Why not?

[bertha katzenengel]

9. I know Bob Luskin. Not intimately, mind, but I know him. He's not lying.

I know him well enough to trust him in this.

And yes, he is a Democrat.

[papau]

34. LOL - "Not intimately" can we trust you on that? - just kidding :-)

:-)

[bertha katzenengel]

41. Heh heh. I'll tell you one thing:

I'm a lesbian. I don't know his orientation -- I think he's straight, but damn, he pings my gaydar.

Anyway, he is SO charming that if we were the least bit attracted to each other and the circumstances were right, he could probably talk me into a one-nighter. He's sweet as can be and a VERY charming fellow. I'm sure it helps in a defense attorney.

:hi:

[onenote]

10. and if Luskin was lying wouldn't one of Leopold's "sources" tell him

Leopold says he won't believe Luskin until he sees a letter,but why doesn't he just check with his sources (who presumably are either on the defense team or the prosecution) to confirm/deny Luskin's claim.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

80. Like Leopold has any standing

to demand any verification from anyone.

That's sort of like Charlie Manson demanding to see the autopsy photos to prove those people were murdered.

Give it up, Jason. You're a headcase without talent and without a story, and you've been outed as a liar.

Now, go away.

[htuttle]

13. Luskin is a mob lawyer

1) http://www.nlpc.org/olap/liuna/failure/fail2_02.htm
2) http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=242

He got in hot water for getting paid $500,000 in GOLD FREAKING BARS for representing a money launderer for the Columbian drug cartels.

No, Luskin would *never* take chances with his 'reputation'...:eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!

I once got paid in car washes by a pimp.

So?

HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

[htuttle]

20. Did you have to pay part of the money back, because it was laundered?

Luskin did.

[theboss]

27. I still don't see what that proves

Here is a secret: 95 percent of those who stand trial for criminal offenses are guilty. I was only involved in criminal defense work for one summer as a law clerk. But every person I dealt with was a scumbag. I can say, without question, that every single one of them either commited a crime or wanted to commit a crime (I'm still angry about the way one case turned out).

There are no Perry Masons. You do criminal defense work, your clients are scum.

It doesn't make the attorney doing the defense a bad person though. In this country, scum have rights.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

85. People confuse

the defense attorney with the jury.

We defend. The jury decides. It's this Constitutional thing people forget about.

A lot of folks never master that basic fact.

Ah, yes, when you deal with criminal law, you deal with criminals. We all find that out, alas.

[theboss]

91. It's not clear why "mob attorney" is somehow an insult

To me, that means "good attorney" because those folks really have to earn their money.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

94. Agreed

That's got to be the scariest job a lawyer can take on, I always thought.

Imagine the consequences of failure.

[theboss]

98. I don't think they are in any physical danger....

Unless they are getting involved with Russians or Colombians, because those guys are nuts. It's just that they have to face the most well-financed, talented prosecutors in the government and have to fight incredibly complex RICO indictments. A friend of my dad's was once picked up on bookmaking charges (in my town, it happens). He was eventually acquitted but said the hardest thing was that one charge had (probably) had some merit, but he had to fight fifteen other charges that didn't. You get buried in some many crimes that you can't focus on the real dangers.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

102. I'd work for the good old Mob,

but the Russians? Oh, man, they are scary.

And watch the Japanese. They're already here, and no one's even catching on. They're going to devour the Russians, I hear.

Good thing I'm a writer now, for the most part.

[patcox2]

101. They're never quite the scum the prosecutor claims they are, though.

Prosecutors are bullying assholes and they overcharge so ridiculously that I never had the least problem defending the scum. And don't get me started about police perjury. Know the definition of police perjury? Its what a cop says when he's under oath (at least when answering any question regarding the grounds for the warrantless search).

[calimary]

135. Hey, in this country scum run the whole freakin' government.

:grr:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

38. What money?

I said "car washes."

[patcox2]

24. I have defended child molesters.

Its a middle class crime, lots of bank presidents, people who can hire a lawyer.

Even hired a hardon-ometer expert once, they showed him kiddie porn and measured his arousal, what a hoot.

[htuttle]

26. Did you get in legal trouble for doing so?

Luskin did.

My point is not guilt by association. He faced charges of money laundering for accepting that money. He had to repay part of it.

[patcox2]

42. Federal prosecutors are overreaching pricks.

That they accused him means nothing to me. They also arrested and tried the attorney who represented the first trade center bombing mastermind, in an egregious act of overreaching their proper role.

[theboss]

33. I give defense lawyers a ton of credit

The one summer I was involved in it was soul-crushing. I assume you eventually develop a tolerance to the scum you have to deal with on a daily basis.

Granted, I now am involved with insurance companies. So, tell me who has less of a soul.

[Marie26]

122. This thread is

making me very glad I'm in public interest work. It seems like it'd be really hard to do that work long-term, though, like you said, you probably get used to it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

50. Weenie-waggers were my specialty for a while

It was a riot. They paid fast, up front - just like my best whores. GREAT clients, except for the one who whipped it out on our receptionist and then locked himself in a closet.

[patcox2]

63. You make me laugh. I still hate this profession.

Now I work in "governmental affairs!" Whoopeee! How now, Brown Bureaucrat!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

70. Icky

But, I must say, I had some mighty high-flying times with "governmental affairs" guys when we were drafting the :::: gulp::::: Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.

Yes, I still regret my part in that, but, hey, I was a brand-new corporate lawyer girl, so what did I know?

Oh, those GA guys and their expense accounts...............

:::::: sigh ::::::::

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. but was it a topless carwash? huh? Huh?

I got paid in services by a home contractor once. It seemed a fair trade

[theboss]

21. And mobsters deserve defense attorneys

I don't see what his client list has to do with anything.

He's not lying about easily proved communication between himself and a federal prosecutor. Christ, he would be facing any number of sanctions for something like that.

On its face, it would be interference with a federal investigation.

[titoresque]

30. but,but,but,but........

He's a Democrat! ;)

[htuttle]

43. Technically, Richard Perle and Fred Phelps are "Registered Democrats", too

:shrug:

[titoresque]

69. Yes, I was agreeing with you

I should have been more clear. :)
But then again, I'm just a "CT nut" an "idiot" and all the other foul names I've been called over the past few day's by my supposed brothers and sisters in the fight for democracy and freedom. It's getting so bad I can't tell where I am. Feels like standing on the side of the road with a "The WAR is a LIE" sign when Bush still enjoyed 50% approval ratings and being pelted with sodas from passers by, or being called vile names by strangers. This atmosphere is certainly familiar.

[SteppingRazor]

82. For every time you've been called a CT nut or idiot for believing this...

I've been called a freeper or troll for not doing so. It's a shame. I'd like to think we can disagree politely.

[karlrschneider]

44. Gold bars aren't worth anything? Hell, I'd be HAPPY to get paid

with bullion. It's a little heavy but it's a lot more durable than paper.
:eyes:

[Sammy Pepys]

22. Luskin has much too lose...and at this point.....

..Leopold doesn't.

As I posted the other day, it's all a big roulette wheel now. Leopold and TO are trying to put their bets down on what they think will come up next.

[papau]

23. material fact in reporting what you thought you heard?

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

Patton Boggs whores for the GOP corporations - indeed that is not an ethical flaw oer the ABA!

:-)

but I suspect he is telling the truth.

I just do not know Luskin is telling the truth.

[patcox2]

37. Thank God for this thread; an oasis of sanity.

hello to all the rational DUers, good to see you!

[SteppingRazor]

46. Somebody's got to try to push back the tide...

:shrug:

I'm plenty liberal, but I believe in reason and critical thinking above all else, including partisan politics.

[Marie26]

119. Hey!

:hi: It's getting scary out there...

[Mz Pip]

40. Lying at this point would make no sense

He'd look like a turd if an indictment were handed down after saying that there wasn't going to be one.

Saying Rove will not be indicted adds nothing to this story if it isn't true.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[OzarkDem]

56. Looking like a turd is in his job description

Its what he gets paid to do - whatever it takes to get his client off the hook.

[theboss]

66. And lying here would have the exact opposite impact

If he is lying about this, Fitzgerald can crucify him and his client for it. Probably force him off the case at the very least.

[onenote]

68. and fabricating a story about being told by Fitz that Rove's off the hook

helps get his client off the hook? How?

[OzarkDem]

76. He's not telling "all" the truth - show us the letter

Pardon me, did I accidentally log into free republic?

What the hell is with you people? This is the Democratic Underground forum, not the Republican Underground forum.

[onenote]

88. excuse me, but shove your sanctimonious crap

Just because some of us doubt Leopold and point out the logical fallacies in the arguments of those who defend them doesn't make us republicans. I've been fighting in the Democratic party trenches, and donating my hard earned money to Democratic candidates, for more than 40 years. The fact that I'm not blinded by the rage that I have at this administration is not something I'm going to apologize for. If more folks were not blinded by their rage, but rather were motivated to do something productive for the party, we'd all be a lot better off. Instead, I get the sense that far too many DUers (and maybe you're not one of them) prefer to sit on their asses waiting for some silver bullet, like a Rove indictment or an impeachment resolution, that's going to turn things around. Bullshit. It takes hard work on the ground and, unfortunately, cash in the bank for political ads, get out the vote campaigns etc.

[OzarkDem]

95. Rage? Where do you get that?

Just standing on principle. I'm not afraid to stand up to the GOP and call them on their illegal acts.

I've also worked in the trenches in politics for Dems, too, for 20+ years. This isn't the time to back down.

No one is expecting a silver bullet, but if we can't stand up to a corrupt administration and hold it accountable for breaking the law, then we don't stand for much of anything. No quarter. No one is above the law and I don't care how many names they call me, I'll still stand up for holding them accountable.

[onenote]

96. I haven't heard anyone say that they shouldn't be held accountable

There's a world of difference between saying that they should be held accountable and questioning unsubstantiated and, in many ways, facially dubious, reports as to what the current status is of the efforts to hold Rove et al accountable. Demanding that information be accurate and not blindly accepting on faith reports that don't withstand scrutiny is not inconsistent with wanting justice.

[leftofthedial]

51. not lying

but parse his words carefully

[OzarkDem]

53. He's just "parsing" the truth, perhaps?

When is he going to show us the letter.

Puhleeze spare me the part about him being a Democrat, I stopped falling for that line a long time ago.

[onenote]

71. I suppose he might show us the letter when JL reveals his sources

At least Luskin identified who he says told him Rove is off the hook. JL hasn't told us squat about who provided him with the info that Rove's goose was cooked...

[OzarkDem]

78. More GOP talking points

getting a little stale around here.

I guess you want us all to apologize to Bush and Rove now for calling them corrupt?

[cigsandcoffee]

79. If Joe Wilson accepts Luskin's statement...

...not to mention Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, and the entire TV, print and Internet media, I don't see where there is any room for doubt, or what difference showing the letter makes.

[OzarkDem]

86. They didn't "accept" it

They said it doesn't exonerate Rove and it doesn't indicate there isn't possibility of future action against him.

Sorry, but I happen to think that what Rove did was wrong and illegal and that there is already ample evidence he was deeply involved in the Plame outing and broke laws in the process. Just because he's dodging a bullet here doesn't make him innocent.

Some of us do think Bush and his cronies are corrupt and you're not going to convince us otherwise.

[DisgustedTX]

123. Sanity? NOOOOOOO!!! TRUTHOUT? YES!!!!!!!

:hurts:

[Pathwalker]

106. I saw and heard a lawyer lie in open court!

You can say they don't lie, you can say it's a crime if they do, but it happens, and it happens IN court proceedings!
Fercryingoutloud! During the court hearing where the man who murdered a friend of mine ADMITTED HIS GUILT, said he was sorry and accepted the 25 years to life - his freaking high-priced lawyer was INSISTING he was innocent, even "SWORE TO THE COURT" using those words exactly. The judge just told him to shut up. The man's DNA was all over the crime scene, all over the victim - it was a horrendous crime - and the DNA expert had testified that it was the denfenant's DNA, and that lawyer STILL kept INSISTING his client was innocent!!!!

Lawyers don't lie - and the world really, really id flat - jeesh!

[dogday]

108. How about David Westerfield's lawyers?

They knew he was quilty before the trial, yet they put the parents of that little girl through living hell on the stand... that is the most nastiest thing I have ever known in open court...

[SteppingRazor]

111. But that's not a lie about material fact...

guilt or innocence isn't determined until a jury returns a verdict. A lawyer can scream that someone's guilty or innocent all day long, and he's not lying, because guilt or innocence hasn't been established by a court of law.

On the other hand, in this case, Luskin is making a statement about a decision of the prosecuting attorney that has already been made -- a material fact.

Of course lawyers lie. But they lie about things that have yet to be established one way or the other in the eyes of the law. Therein lies the difference.

[Pathwalker]

117. The man had already PLED GUILTY.

And the court had already ACCEPTED his guilty plea. so, there was no longer any LEGAL question about his guilt. I don't understand how his guilt had not yet been established - his plea had been accepted!
And the lawyer still kept lying, insisting the proceedings were a "travesty".

PS: The man's children were witnesses to the murder!

[theboss]

120. Why was there a trial after a guilty plea?

It sounds like there was a confession that was then squashed. The scenario you present is confusing.

[Pathwalker]

124. No, during the trial, the prosecutor called the son to testify,

at which time the defendant jumped up and said he wanted to change his plea to guilty. His lawyer objected, and they called a recess. That morning, the defendant had been told by his family that if he forced his son to testify, he would be cut off from the family's extremely ample fortune.
When court resumed, the plea was accepted, and then the man's lawyer went on his tirade. Everyone in the court was gasping when the lawyer accepted the plea - then declared his client's innocence. Even the man's mother knew he was guilty, though she still supports him in prison, because he didn't force his son to testify against him. So, I am still confused, too. The man's guilt had been established and accepted - THEN his lawyer claimed he was innocent. I've never understood how he was allowed to say that and not be punished.

[theboss]

126. That attorney did the right thing

He was defending the rights of his client, including the right against self-incrimination.

If anything, he should have immediately asked for a competency hearing.

[Pathwalker]

128. It's over now. He's in prison where he belongs.

Why didn't he just argue that BEFORE he let the proceedings go on? The man had already put himself in the hospital as a danger to himself and others. Besides, his three suicide notes where he admitted killing her had yet to be admitted - that wouldn't have helped his case much.
He never would have been found innocent, there was just too much evidence against him.
I understand he was doing his job, but the man was even guiltier than OJ, and everyone knew it. Everyone thought the lawyer's comment was ghastly - even the judge.

[theboss]

112. That's not a lie; that's a defense

Stating that a guilty person is innocent is a defense; it's a requirement of the system.

Stating that you received mail that you did not receive is a lie.

[whalerider55]

118. Show me the letter

show me the Fitzgerals letter.
show me any indication that the investigation is over.

as I posted earlier, I think rove and libby are singing like mine canaries; rove for a temporary respite from prosecution contingent on the quality of his aria, and libby for the plea bargain that will go down the day before trial starts.

the "sealed indictment?"
US v Cheney.

Libby will now sell him out in a heartbeat- and rove will as well- cheney will take the fall (unwillingly) but he doesn't have the reach or lethality of bushco.

Also,let's wait for something from Fitzie's office beyond no comment.

Personally, I try to take the best info I can get- primary sources, and filter it through my own process to end up with an opinion. I try not to get too optimistic, and not to get sucked in by people who tell me what I want to hear. That way, i can try to avoid the entire circle jerk of fingerpointing, narstiness, and general pissed off ranting that happens when the wizard turns out to be a little weasel from Kanasas.

I can only blame myself.
Well, I always blame W., even when the dog poops on the rug.



whalerider