Which one do you trust more? Leopold, Luskin, or Solomon

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:23 PM
Original message

Poll question: Which one do you trust more? Leopold, Luskin, or Solomon

Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 02:25 PM by jsamuel

Solomon, reporter of the story http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1416701&mesg_id=1416812

Luskin, Rove's lawyer

Have we seen the letter?
Was it a fax/letter/or call? or all?
Solomon says Reid is a crook...

I just want to see the letter with official Fitz letterhead.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tiggeroshii

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:27 PM
Response to Original message

1. Luskin's no better than any other wingnut n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SteppingRazor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. Um... Luskin's a Democrat, actually.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=DC&last=luskin&first=robert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tiggeroshii

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. I'm sorry

I meant no more creible than any other wingnut. He hasn't said much lately that has rung very true in the past months. Shortly after he said Rove is not a subject, Rove spoke several hours more at the Grand jury. He said Rove never mentioned Plame's name in conversation and ripped that Time reporter who came forward calling him a "traitor" in the NR.

He's on the same level of spin as the other wackos.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

yodermon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #3

21. so's Lieberman. So's Zell.

your point?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hugin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:28 PM
Response to Original message

2. My own two eyes, dear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. oh good, you saw the letter?

link?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hugin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. Not yet.

But, the closer one is to Rove the less I trust them.

Help any?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. yeah

I just know that Luskin has motive to lie for his client. Rove has motive to lie for the WH. Solomon has motive to lie for helping Republicans. Leopold has motive to lie to scoop a story. Leopold's sources have motive to lie to "get" us.

I just want to see the letter :/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue_In_AK

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message

8. Is there a none-of-the-above option?

I believe it when I see it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #8

11. That was kind of my point :)

We shouldn't "believe" anyone more than anyone else. We should see the letter for ourselves. I don't really trust any of the above enough to say what has happened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SteppingRazor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #8

14. Same thing I thought when reading this poll...

Although, I'm actually inclined to believe Luskin. If he's lying about this, it could be seen as fraud impeding the administration of justice -- he could be disbarred. Why, then, would he lie?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #14

16. how would him lying about this imped the AOJ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SteppingRazor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #16

18. Rule 4.1 of the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct:

"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. "

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_4_1.html

Given that, here's how I see it

If Luskin is lying, he's breaking rule 4.1(a), the penalty for which could be disbarrment.
Luskin is a Democrat, not a conservative, partisan Republican.
Ergo, there is no way Luskin would throw his career away on defending Karl Rove.

Conclusion: Luskin isn't lying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #18

19. well, isn't any lawyer who says that their client is innocent when they

are guilty doing the same thing?

hmmm...

I don't know, but you do have a good argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SteppingRazor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #19

20. No, because guilt or innocence is not a proven material fact...

until after trial.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Catherine Vincent

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message

9. Fitz!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

stop the bleeding

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:34 PM
Response to Original message

10. I trust your robot cat

I know I know it is not a robot, but man that cat is on a mission

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jsamuel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #10

12. lol

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Pale Blue Dot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message

13. The point is not who we trust more. The point is who benefits from a lie.

I can only see one person who benefits from continually spreading a falsehood about this story.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SteppingRazor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #13

15. What about the opposite -- who has the most to lose?

Because, as I pointed out in an above post, Luskin could face disbarrment for lying in this way. So it makes very little sense for him to do so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Pale Blue Dot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #15

17. There is no benefit to Luskin or Rove to lying about this.

None. I have yet to see anyone even attempt to argue otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

radwriter0555

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 02:58 PM
Response to Original message

22. I make it a policy to NEVER TRUST a REPUBLICAN working for the most crime

ridden and corrupt regime on the PLANET, at this MOMENT.

Holy CRAP. That anyone on DU would trust ANYONE at ALL working FOR THE BUSH ReGIME?

Who is smoking what, or what?

Dang.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 15th 2024, 09:24 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.