Someone is lying...

Leopold or Rove & Luskin.

I must say I don't trust Rove or Luskin, but I don't know if I should trust Leopold.

I just listened to Leopold on Ed's show and well, it was very weird. Who knows?

yep someone is fibbing

Hmm...can't say FOR SURE, but I know who I *suspect* is lying.

Kinda puts it all into perspective.

Cause it ain't leopold.

Only Leopold benefits, temporarily, from lying.

...

Ruskin is not going to lie about correspondance between himself and the prosecutor. As I stated before, attorneys do not lie about provable facts.

and I think Leopold is a nut.

:-)

Never ever, never! They especially never lie when they work for clients like BushCo who have claimed to be completely above the law.

No, of course Luskin would never lie. He's a fucking saint!

This whole "Luskin lying" story is BS, now that I have had time to think about it.

According to opensecrets.org.

I'd like to see evidence he's a Democrat.

This would be a remarkably bold-faced lie and one that could result in sanctions, indictment, disbarrment, or any other kind of punishment for Luskin.

Luskin works for the second most powerful person on Earth. He does what he's told.

Provide verifiable evidence that lying about correspondence with federal prosecutors can result in sanctions, indictments or disbarment or any other kind of punishment.

Considering that it happened outside of the courtroom, and Luskin is under no oath, I find your claim highly dubious.

as easily provable (either way) as that. He might be a lot of things, but he's nowhere NEAR stupid enough to gamble his legal career in that way.

Not to mention the fact that it could possibly be considered interference with an ongoing investigation.

A good prosecutor - which Fitz is - would destroy him. And his State Bar would probably be interested.

Here's the Rules of Professional Responsibilities:
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html

Kindly point to which rule Luskin would have violated considering the circumstances in this instance.

...

Look at Rule 4.1.

Luskin hasn't said how he was informed and he wasn't definitive in his statement, so it can't be determined if he's lying.

It's a "he said/she said," but it's a pretty simple one to prove.

If the reports that Luskin was told in a phone conversation are correct, unless one party was recording the conversation.

So then it would be a "he said/she said" situation.

He's going to accuse a highly respected attorney of lying to him on the phone in order to protect his own lie. And he's going to do it in front of a panel of attorneys.

That will work.

Luskin could practically get away with murder.

First of all, I doubt that he released Rove without a letter. Attorneys write letters about everything. The paper trail is everything.

Secondly, if I were Fitzgerald and Luskin made this statement, I would be writing a memo to the file right now explaining the lie in detail.

(1) Why isn't Luskin releasing it to the public and will no longer comment about it?
(2) Why hasn't Fitzgerald's office confirmed or denied Luskin's statement?

I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of reasonable doubt.

Based upon (1) and (2), there's a reasonable doubt in my mind not only on Luskin's statment, but on his motivation.

Luskin is under no obligation to release it.
Fitzgerald never talks.

Fitzgerald is under no obligation to say or do anything.

However, Luskin is since he's the one who made the statement and professed to have evidence of his statement. Until such a time Luskin provides evidence, or Fitzgerald confirms Luskin's statment, Rove is still involved in the investigation and could still be indicted. At least as far as I'm concerned.

your position really does seem perilously close to the doctrine of "guilty until proven innocent"...

:eyes:

Five trips to a grand jury tends to make you look guilty of something. Especially when you're called back because your stories don't add up or match.


If you're claiming you've never pre-judged anyone... well, I don't think I have to finish that thought.

This is clearly a matter of faith with you. And I don't question anyone's religious beliefs.

I don't trust known liars, or attorneys who represent them.

following "...made this statement..."

But widdershins, in that case I can't even begin to imagine Fitz wouldn't have (in addition to your proposition) contacted the media to correct the record, as it were. Can you?

The ignorance displayed in your post is incredible.

I actually admire your kind of closed-eyes reasoning and lack of information, and the gutsy way you challenge a verifiable fact on the basis of nothing.

"... outside of the courtroom ........."?

What courtroom? Have you any idea what you're talking about?

No oath? We lawyers take an oath when we're sworn in, and we are NEVER released from it. We are obligated in so many ways that you clearly do not understand.

Pity, too, because it really is the responsibility - I think - of every good citizen to know how our judicial system works.

You sure don't.

Since you're a lawyer, you shouldn't have any trouble providing a non-lawyer like me with a cite which addresses this exact circumstances.


BTW, I won't alert the moderator to your post which was clearly a personal attack and a violation of DU rules. Consider it professional courtesy.

but I don't practice law on a message board, and I don't answer law-related questions.

I'm sure you'll understand that, too.

Opinions very often might seem like personal attacks if they are too close to the truth. You show no courtesy or information whatsoever, and asking for free legal counsel is very bad form.

Good luck, and enjoy IgnoreLand. You've earned it.

I asked for a citation unrelated to a legal question. The question regarded personal responsibilities attorneys have.

It's interesting that you dont know the difference.



"enjoy IgnoreLand. You've earned it."

Another personal attack, color me surprised.

Can I use that ... ?

"I actually admire your kind of closed-eyes reasoning and lack of information, and the gutsy way you challenge a verifiable fact on the basis of nothing."

With attribution, of course.

the prosecutor might deal, and great pressure can be brought to bear?

If there was even the smallest risk of one, Luskin would say nothing.

If the indictment is sealed, only those directly involved would know about it.

Are you claiming you're directly involved?

jeezus...

The poster theboss is the one who made the claim the indictment is sealed.

Talk about a knee jerk reaction.

:eyes:

Did the word drop off your monitor?

The subject line of his post is clear:

12. There is no sealed indictment


And here I thought lawyers were supposed to be precise.

:eyes:

"There is no sealed indictment" means there is NOT a sealed indictment.

In the sentence, "no" is an adjective modifying the noun indictment.

How do you know this?

Is there a statement from Luskin or Fitzgerald you can direct me to in which one of them says this?

And experience shows that the circumstances for the existence of a sealed indictment are not in play here.

All Luskin said was that Rove would not be charged, and even then Luskin refuses to state how he knows.

All Luskin is saying is that he was told Rove would not be charged. Luskin isn't saying how he was told (reports range from receiving a fax to a phone call and a letter) and he's not releasing any documented proof.

I think people don't understand what a sealed indictment is. Here is the explanation:

It's an indictment. It does not go away.

Fitzgerald would not get an indictment of Rove and then say, "Don't worry...I'm not going to indict you."

This started on the question of whether Luskin would lie about something like this.

I personally believe Luskin go to any length it takes to protect his client.

Including stretching the bounds of the responsibility to his profession.

And Fitzgerald stating that Rove is in the clear means that there is no sealed indictment.

There you go.

Is that how you know Luskin wouldn't lie?

I've already given you one case where a prosecuting attorney had lied, in court, about something that could have been easily proven.

At least I assume he is not.

And I fail to see how this blatant lie would help Rove. Explain that to me.

"At least I assume he is not."


Nothing Luskin has said can be described as a blatant lie. If you read Luskin's statement, he is purposefully not completely committed. That's intentional in the legal profession.

If he did not, he is lying.

He could claim he was making a statement based upon his interpretation of the contact.

Personal interpretations are based upon factors other than what is actually being said.

But, like I said, you can believe what you wish at this point.

Even you have to admit lawyers are well versed in manipulating facts and fiction.


"you can believe what you wish at this point"

Thank you, I will. Not that I needed your permission.

therefore "no sealed" includes "unsealed" as well by definition and default.

Just because there is no unsealed indictment doesn't mean there there is not a sealed indictment as the poster contends.


""no sealed" includes "unsealed" as well by definition and default."

That doesn't make sense.

I've lost track of what you are claiming I said.

And we all know how honest and trustworthy lawyers are.

:eyes:

You seem to have a pretty big grudge against the legal profession.

Anyway, attorneys do lie. That's pretty much part of the job description at times. But it has to be a clever lie about unprovable things. Holding up a dog and calling it a cat is not going to work in front of a judge.

Jeesh.

:eyes:

Go back to post #13 in this thread where it all started.

You're clearly wrong.

I shouldn't have used the word lie. But attorneys can stretch the truth and make inconsistent statements about unprovable things.

They are not going to lie about provable facts. Unless they are hacks working out of an old 7-11.

indictment, it would've been public information and we would know about it.

There is NO indictment. Never was. That is my position.

Google "Bruce Sons" and "Tauzer" and read how Tauzer, the prosecuting lawyer in the case, lied during the original trial.

was wondering about that claim...

You are decieving us by bothering with this tiresome distraction any longer.

which doesn't do much good for Luskin's credibility.

Read his statement to the press again.

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."


Not very definitive language if you ask me. "Doesn't anticipate..." That sure doesn't sound like a very strong answer. Luskin has said stuff like this all throughout the trial and he's leaked misleading info through the press before. There's nothing there that you can nail him down with. "Gee, I didn't anticipate Mr. Rove getting indicted". Fitz could have easily sent him a letter saying, for the time being, while I investigate the info your client gave us, he's a free man.

Just my 2 cents about it.

It's clear and simple to understand.

What's so hard to comprehend about Fitzgerald's actions? You never got a letter from a lawyer? There is language we use, just like any other profession, and perhaps it's hard for someone outside to understand, but this one is simple.

The vast majority of Americans don't speak legalese.

And the poster is correct, Luskin's statement is not definitive.

that Luskin has presented in the past. This statement could very well be clear cut, but I always find it interesting when people pick certain words. Maybe he means Rove is free and clear, but then again maybe not. Tell me seriously that you can nail Luskin down to anything with this statement. As a lawyer, you couldn't pick apart this statement even a little bit? C'mon.

My interest was peaked when he didn't simply say, Fitz told us Rove is completely free and clear. He won't be indicted. There is no possibility of him being indicted. You know, clear cut language. Putting out a lawyer letter and making an off the cuff statement, not in a press briefing situation....two different things.

Does it daily.

In the current era we have a criminal administration, rotten from the head down.
We have a Congress who more or less rubber stamps what the people at Bush Co want them to say, and a easily manipulated press who, as Colbert said, takes what the Deciderer decides to say and writes it down and puts it out for the public to read.
The only really honest news we have now is what is being said in the progressive and liberal blogs,and even then, we need to look at it from all sides and decide for ourselves how accurate it is.
What I think is that, in order to discredit the folks here at DU, this story was fed to Will and Jason as the true goods, and perhaps even THEIR sources were duped into believing this information that was given was bona fide.
So we happily believe this, play it up and spread the good word around. Things are finally going to happen!!
SURPRISE!!!!
It did NOT happen, and we at DU, and other like minded groups end up looking like a bunch of goons.
The fact that we are not fools, and can understand what has happened is to our credit, for sure, but the Freeps and others have a bit of fun at our expense.
Our best course of action is to not let this discourage us fine folk here, and realize the battle still goes on, and, even with some setbacks, we still are gonna come out on top in the end.
Just my observation, but I would not be surprised if this scenario was dead on.
Anyway, just my opinion.



:think: