Did Luskin get a letter or a phone call?

[Rose Siding]

A. Why is NBC reporting that Luskin got a phone call while the NYT says it was a letter?

B. Did Johnson at the NYT see the letter from Fitzgerald?

C. Did he ask to see the letter?

D. Why didn't the NYT ask to see the letter?

E. If Johnson at the Times did ask to see the letter and then did see it, why wasn't that reported?

F. If they did ask and still didn't get to see it, why wasn't that information included in the article?

The former prosecutor at FDL writes:

"Johnston has always seemed to have good sources within the Luskin/Rove camp (although, frankly, who didn’t last year when Luskin may have called every reporter in the universe). So it’s not surprising that Luskin would pick the NYTimes as his outlet for announcing news of a letter freeing-up Rove (if, indeed, that is what it fully does…although, I have to say, in all honesty, as an attorney you would never make an announcement like this without something in hand from the prosecutor which purports to say this — you’d never be taken seriously in any other case otherwise…).

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/dodging-cipa-graymail-bulletsand-other-legal-notes/

NBC (phone call rpt)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13018897/

NYT (letter)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html?hp&ex=1150257600&en=e40da3e03155858f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

BTW, the teaser to the article on the Post site now reads: "Rove Unlikely To Be Charged..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

[LeftNYC]

1. Rove flipped is my opinion

but opinions are like assholes.

[Rose Siding]

7. Yes- That could explain why it wasn't shown but not why

that detail isn't included in the report. I'm sick sick sick of reporters denying the public information. The only reason I can think of for not reporting about seeing a letter (if it was seen) would be for Johnson to have agreed not to, in order to get the scoop.

If he didn't even ask to see it, he was sloppy.

[CabalPowered]

14. That's my opinion as well... which could mean Cheney

I think...? One can hope at least.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Maybe Mr. Fitzgerald will give us the courtesy

of issuing an official statement, so that the speculation doesn't have to run any wilder then it already is?

[Sydnie]

6. I wouldn't expect that

He said in his Libby press conference, that unless someone is indicted, even if they have been investigated, that they would not speak of that person.

Just makes me wonder about "Official A". Could Official A have been Cheney and not Rove all along?

Fitz has a track record of ALWAYS indicting any "Official" named in indictments of others.
Just makes me wonder if we had the identity of this Official A wrong all along. :shrug:

[Jersey Devil]

3. More shoddy reporting?

Could Johnson just have assumed that Luskin received a letter because Luskin said he'd been "formally" notified by Fitzpatrick? It's hard to believe that reporting could be that shoddy, but then again, we've seen it before. Maybe Luskin isn't lying. Maybe he never said anything about a letter in the first place.

[BR_Parkway]

9. Judith Miller's NYT? That shoddy, nah, couldn't happen to that stalwart

of fact checking editorial staff they have

:sarcasm:

[mzteris]

4. I wish Fitz would update his website! n/t

[patcox2]

5. Desperately seeking to maintain the fantasy?

The NY Times says Luskin received "formal confirmation." There's nothing inconsistent in the reports. A lawyer would not risk disbarment over this (such a huge public lie would get Luskin disbarred). The New York Times and the major networks would not print it if they weren't confident.

but go ahead, rationalize away.

[Jersey Devil]

8. Not exactly

"The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin,.."

[Rose Siding]

11. That's possible, but I don't think so

I just have questions about whether the reporter saw the letter and if it said anything beyond what was in the report. Do you know if it's common for attys to make announcements like this without providing the letter?

Thanks :hi:

[dogday]

12. David Westerfield's Lawyers did not get that memo

Knowing from the beginning that Westerfield killed that little girl and was willing to give up location of her body if the death penalty were taken off the table... What do the Lawyers do? Knowing he was guilty, they went after the parents of a dead girl, who were grieving beyond belief...They smeared them terribly, ruined their reputations and all the while the Lawyers know he is guilty as sin... Now tell me they can't lie again, cause this was one of the biggest I have ever seen from an Attorney...

Their job is to protect their clients always... I want to see proof, that is all I ask...

[Patsy Stone]

16. The NYT also said that

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."

I don't anticipate getting hit by a bus this afternoon, but you never know.

If there is a letter which fully exonerates Rove, what would it serve either Luskin or Rove to withold it? Show it proudly, make a T-shirt, buy a billboard.

[Avalux]

10. Hmmmm. Contradictions. And the post article -

it does not definitively state Rove WILL NOT be indicted. If there is a letter, then absolutely Johnston should have had access to the letter - he should have demanded it. What's going on here?

In fact if there is a letter, I would think Rove's camp would want it to be out there front and center so there wouldn't be any more questions about it. Unless of course, they've left it ambiguous on purpose, so us "silly liberals" will keep talking.


:shrug:

[LeftNYC]

13. Yes. If this is complete innocence then let us see the letter...nt

[Igel]

17. Not a contradiction.

A disagreement. They're different, and not incompatible unless we read the articles as intending "only a phone call" or "only a letter".

I wouldn't be surprised if Fitzgerald didn't call and then fax the formal notice, pending the delivery of a signed hard copy of the letter.

Phone call ain't formal.

But you're right: 'anticipate' doesn't mean 'won't.' But lawyers wouldn't say they wouldn't do it if there's the smallest chance; they'd be binding their conduct, and good will (in the Gricean sense) is seldom forthcoming from opponents.

Fitzgerald's no doubt looked over lots of testimony, as has his staff. Unless there's more testimony, the investigation is all but done. Time to get the fork.

[DearAbby]

15. Hey Luskin...SHOW THE LETTER!

If in fact it proves beyond the shadow of doubt, Rove is as pure as snow, wrongfully smeared by those Angry Liberals... Luskin could have given the letter to FOX SNOOZE so they can show it..what better than graphic proof.. Letter showing How Fitzgerald has cleared Rove. If that is the case, What would be better proof than the CONTENTS of the letter being released to the media.

SHOW THE LETTER!

[LeftNYC]

18. Luskin wont say how he was notified. Just that he was...nt