[eDebate] luskin is a liar: print the letter, bitch

Jake Stromboli infracaninophile
Tue Jun 13 12:36:26 CDT 2006


bush administration takes misinfo to all new level today claiming they have 
a letter from fitzgerald clearing rove of any allegations.

1) luskin does not make letter public b/c if there is a letter it explains 
that the indictment was dropped in return for turning state's evidence, i.e. 
rolling on cheney.  rove is suck a fuck that wouldn't cooperate unless 
facing criminal charges.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/13/9339/59486

Dick Cheney is dragging down the White House. He is largely responsible for 
the mess in Iraq. He is trying to sabotage any attempts to negotiate 
honestly with Iran. And he is exposing everyone in the Administration to 
some serious legal jeopardy, in the event they ever lose control of courts. 
At some point, Dick Cheney's authoritarianism will doom Bush's legacy.

But you can't make him quit. His is a Constitutional office, he was elected 
along with Bush, so you can't make him resign like you can with your 
Treasury Secretary or your Environmental Secretary. What better way to get 
rid of him, then, than to expose him to legal proceedings? It gives you the 
ability (farcical, but no matter) to say that you have severed all ties with 
his policies and legacies.

Now here are some data points:

There is clear evidence (for example, in the White House's reluctance to 
publicly exonerate Libby in Fall 2003) that the White House holds OVP 
responsible for this mess.

Patrick Fitzgerald received a large new chunk of evidence recently, a bunch 
of emails.

In March leaks suggested that Rove was helping Fitzgerald understand those 
emails.

Not long ago, the guy who coordinated the cover-up in Fall 2003 (April 14) 
and the guy who covered it up with the public (April 20) left the White 
House.

In an appearance on April 19 Novak denied taking the Fifth--but he did not 
deny cooperating with the investigation.

After Rove's grand jury appearance on April 25, Luskin gave a somewhat 
tortured denial of Rove's jeopardy.

Fitzgerald's public comments have recently implicated Cheney more and more, 
first by revealing that Dick ordered Libby to leak Plame's identity the NIE 
(in late January), then by showing the world Dick's immediate response to 
Joe Wilson's op-ed (in May).

Yesterday at Libby's status hearing, Fitzgerald revealed the White House 
will not block Libby's access to any materials.

In his statement today, Luskin does not claim the investigation is over--he 
refers to it as a "pending case" and refuses to make further public 
statements.

This is an outtamyarse speculation, but I think it is possible that those 
emails revealed the Fall 2003 cover-up, and that Rove at first tried to 
bully his way through them (all the while recognizing his legal jeopardy 
increased). The people who were tangentially involved--Card and 
Scotty--decided to save their skin. And then Rove and Novak, presumably with 
Bush's blessing, traded real cooperation in exchange for Cheney's head.

I'm not trying to give people undue hope, or trying to cheer people up. But 
it has become clear that Cheney was the architect of this smear, from start 
to finish. It has been clear that Fitzgerald has Dick in his sights. If 
Fitzgerald got closer to being able to prove that case, I think it possible 
that the Texas mafia might sacrifice the person who caused all this 
difficulty (and who had become the White House's anvil dragging it down) in 
order to save its beloved Turdblossom.

When I introduced myself to Byron York over the weekend, he said something 
to the effect of "a lot of people here have high hopes that Rove would be 
indicted." I responded, "but don't all reasonable people have hopes that 
Rove will be indicted." York didn't respond. But as soon as I walked away, I 
wished that I had responded, "No Byron, many of us have even higher hopes 
that Dick Cheney will pay for his obvious involvement in this case." It's 
worth noting, by the way, that Byron York appears to have been one of the 
first, if not the first, to break the news that Rove will not face charges. 
It's also worth noting that, when we spoke, York tried to make the case that 
Rove has been cooperating all along. "No Byron," I patiently explained, "I 
mean Big-C cooperation. The other stuff was just Rove proving his testicular 
fortitude." York's attempts to downplay the possibility of Rove's 
cooperation may not mean anything, just 36 hours before he announced that 
Rove would not face charges. Then again, it might.

This case may be over--at least at the legal level. But until Patrick 
Fitzgerald reveals that he is done, we won't know what Rove's escape from 
justice really means.

UpdateI'd like to make something a bit more clear. The statement at the top 
of the diary came from Joe Wilson's lawyer, Christoper Wolf, the guy who 
will take a lawsuit against Karl Rove if the Wilsons decide to sue. So when 
he says, "The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to 
account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons," he may have 
something specific in mind.

Update 2 I'm going to elevate a comment my blogmate Kagro X made, because I 
think it's important:

What Luskin's statement does say:
We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the 
baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct.
What Luskin's statement does not say:
This definitively clear Mr. Rove of any suspicion of wrongdoing.
This does not change the meaning of what Fitzgerald may have communicated 
regarding the anticipation of charges. But what it may mean is that Luskin 
is constrained from claiming his client has been exonerated. Why? Because 
he's cooperating, and if he claims too much -- i.e., that he's been cleared 
of wrongdoing -- that may put him right back in the place he just weaseled 
out of.
Luskin's not claiming Rove has been exonerated. The rest of the sheepish 
media, yes. But Luskin, who presumably is one of the few to know what this 
means, is not making that claim.


2) fitzgerald has yet to confirm lie.


3) truthout.org sticks to indictment story despite attacks on their 
credibility and challenges luskin to produce so-called "letter".   all along 
truthout has been presenting the "cooperation" angle as the reason for 
delay.    i am sure leopold and ash believe that letter of so-called 
"exoneration" explains that the charges have been dropped in exchange for 
turning states evidence:

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/13/104836/605

Regarding Mr. Luskin's Statements

By Marc Ash,

Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 10:48:36 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

We are stunned by the magnitude of the reaction to the article we published 
yesterday morning. We have put our cards on the table. We invite Mr. Luskin 
to do the same.

To clarify: The entire basis for the information that "Rove has been 
cleared" comes from a verbal statement by Karl Rove's attorney. No one else 
confirms that. As Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin is bound to act - in 
all regards - in Rove's best interest. We question his motives.

4) wilson and plame will sue independently and win if fitzgerald lets rove 
off in exchange for cheney.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963





More information about the Mailman mailing list