OMG, A LAWYER LIED?!?! UNBELIEVABLE

[berni_mccoy]

:sarcasm:

WTF people? Why is it hard to believe that a lawyer will lie to defend his client? I thought it was widely accepted that the term lawyer was synonymous with liar.

In this case, the source of the story is Luskin and the lead reporter is none-other than, John "Backwards Facts" Solomon, who has repeated attacked Wilson/Plame throughout the story, reported that Wilson said his wife was undercover, and made up a NON-STORY about Harry Reid and boxing tickets (getting the facts backward there too).

COULD IT BE that a Lawyer lied and a reporter known to make shit up lied too?

The problem is, NOONE KNOWS THE TRUTH OF THIS MATTER EXCEPT FITZGERALD and LUSKIN and the problem with that is Fitzgerald isn't talking, and are you going to believe Luskin?

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. The ones that like to promote the Rove version

believe him.

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Maybe we can get that talkleft person to call Luskin again and

ask for proof.

[KittyWampus]

12. Or find out if Rove has agreed to testify. Or find out HOW Rove cooperated

[onenote]

3. what exactly makes Solomon the "lead" reporter?

Luskin issued a written statement. Any reporter could pick it up and report it. And while I agree that no one knows the truth of this matter except Luskin and Fitzgerald (and that means those not knowing the truth include Jason Leopold), I have yet to see anything approaching a logical explanation of how Luskin's lying to the world that he'd been contacted by Fitz and told that Rove isn't likely to be charged would "help" Rove's legal situation.

[berni_mccoy]

7. The first story to hit the wire on this was from AP

All other stories that appeared (very shortly) thereafter were basically re-hashing of the AP story. It did not appear as independent reporting was done on this.

And the reporter for AP is John Solomon.

[onenote]

are you saying only Solomon has seen Luskin's written statement

and only Solomon has spoken with Luskin? Because unless that's what you're claiming what difference does it make who reported it first?

[berni_mccoy]

10. I'm saying Solomon is full of B.S.

I doubt he's seen anything.

[onenote]

15. okay, so are you saying that there is no written statement from luskin

That all of the reporters that reported it simply took Solomon's word that Luskin put out a written statement? And that those reporters who have contacted Luskin directly are lying? Or do you think Luskin is just a figment of SOlomon's imagination and all the other reporters are just dupes?

[saracat]

4. And you think a lawyer would publicly jeopardize his standing?

You think a well known attorney would throw away his career? Grow up. My entire family are lawyers, (At least my parents and grandfather) and I resent the bogus infantile crap of lawyers being synonymous with liars. Luskin used the term "official notification". If he was "lying' he would have CHA and used different terminology! And that is only if he were crooked and we have no reason to believe he is. Everyone is entitled to a defense, even Rove.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Your assuming that's what he said, and not what was reported (by Solomon)

[saracat]

8. If it wasn't the case, Fitzgerald would have issued a denial.Hello?

No denial? Must be true sorry.

[berni_mccoy]

9. No, he would not be able to comment since the indictment is still sealed

If he denied it, he'd be giving away information that he can not.

[saracat]

11. That is an urban legend according to most lawyers!

[theboss]

16. There is no sealed indictment

Let's put that to rest now please.

[regnaD kciN]

5. Yes, but...

...don't you think that, if Luskin had announced a letter from Fitzgerald that didn't actually exist, Fitzgerald's office wouldn't have immediately issued a disclaimer?

Let's not play "Grasping At Straws" here. Solomon is a sleaze, and Luskin is an attorney, but there's no reason to believe that their story isn't true in this case.

[berni_mccoy]

13. No, Fitz would NOT BE ABLE to because if Rove has been indicted

and it's a sealed indictment, by denying the letter, he's giving away information that he can not give out.

Fitz's only option is to say "No Comment" which he has done.

If the story were true, and he was questioned about the letter, then there is nothing holding him back from confirming it, which is ISN'T DOING.

[onenote]

17. wrong:

If a lawyer in this case made a false statement attributing to Fitz a fictional communication, Fitz could (and I would expect he might) respond simply by stating that the investigation is ongoing and that there has been no communication with Mr. Rove's counsel to the contrary.

THat wouldn't give away any information that he's not permitted to give out.

[KittyWampus]

14. Luskin never said WHY Fitz wasn't anticipating an indictment of Rove

is it because Rove will testify against a superior?

[Catherine Vincent]

18. Okay, I have a theory... :-)

Luskin puts out the story that Fitzgerald does not anticipate Rove will be indicted. This Solomon reporter is the only one that picked it up and ran with it. The rest of the media runs with it now that this Solomon reporter picked it up. Could Luskin/Rove put that out there to get a reaction from Fitzgerald or his team? Maybe they don't know what is up and want to get some kind of information from Fitzgerald and if they have to do it by putting this false story out there, then so be it.