Word Blossum: Karl Rove's Lawyer Screws Up (tnr.com)

[bunkerbuster1]

It's subscription only, but here's a taste. It's hard to believe there's a method behind this madness (incompetence?), if Ryan Lizza's account is to be believed ...and I'm no lawyer, but it sounds plausible to me.

In at least one Washington law firm this July, the summer associates are earning their keep. Their boss is one of the lawyers involved with the Rove-Plame scandal, and he's keeping them busy with a surprisingly thorny task: Tracking the public comments of Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney. Over the last two weeks, Luskin has flummoxed Washington's Fourth Estate with spin and legalisms. He has embarrassed reporters who ran with the cleverly worded denials he dished out. He has contradicted himself, sometimes within the same news article. He may have accidentally paved the way for Matt Cooper's Wednesday grand jury testimony about Rove. In short, he has made life difficult for those summer associates. "Every day," says the lawyer involved in the case, "I have my associates put together a chronology of the things Luskin is saying about Karl Rove. He's just all over the place. Even in the last few days, they are not consistent."

Every Washington scandal eventually shifts from the political realm to the legal realm, a moment when those being investigated retreat from public view and their lawyers step forward. It is a make-or-break moment for the Beltway defense attorney, and one of the reasons that people like Luskin relish such high-profile cases. But Luskin is stumbling out of the gate. Not since William Ginsburg, Monica Lewinsky's hapless first attorney, has a lawyer had such an inept public debut. Legal veterans of scandals past are scratching their heads. "He's publicized his client more than his client might like," says one of the lawyers central to the Lewinsky drama. "I've been surprised by the disclosures. I don't know of any strategy behind it, and a lot of people are looking at it the same way."

<...>

The Harvard alum and Rhodes scholar first started getting chatty with reporters back in December. He told the Chicago Tribune that the only way for the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, to establish a pattern of wrongdoing by the Bushies was for him to drag reporters into the grand jury. "I don't see how you can conduct a leak investigation in a sensitive way," he said, sounding oddly detached from the case for someone whose client's fate was at stake. "You have to talk to everybody." Perhaps he was just sucking up to the prosecutor, but it seemed bizarre for Rove's attorney to publicly endorse a prosecutorial strategy that was tightening the noose around his client's throat.

<...>

<in an LA Times article> there was Luskin's curious statement that Rove "was sharing what he knew but with the specific understanding it would not be disclosed." Luskin emphasized this important point by noting that, in the e-mail, which, according to him, may or may not be real, Cooper said he was speaking to Rove "on double super secret background," a phrase that Luskin apparently believes is an actual level of confidentiality taught at the Columbia School of Journalism rather than a jokey reference to the movie Animal House. (Dean Wormer famously put the Delta boys on double secret probation.)

[bejammin075]

1. Good find

In the context of this ongoing criminal investigation, what does "doubel super secret" refer too? Is it the secrecy of the Rove-Cooper communication, or is it about Plame's identity, as in, Rove knows Plame's ID is double super secret?

[bejammin075]

2. note on assinine strategy by lawyer

perhaps luskin is doing too much of the in-your-face republican style tactics that won't work in a court of law. in the court of public opinion, the repubs have perfected the art of the big lie, and accusing opponents of the very things they are doing themselves (Karl Rove talking about dems politicising 9-11, balsy stuff like that). that strategy is not going to work in court.

if/when the bush admin goes down, it will go down hard.

[drm604]

3. Confirmation of the quotes in your article.

"...if Ryan Lizza's account is to be believed..."

It appears to be believable. The Luskin quote attributed to the Chicago Tribune (about talking to everybody to establish a pattern) is also mentioned here. The "double super secret background" quote is mentioned all over the place. A Google search returns over 8,000 hits for that phrase.

These statements by Luskin really floor me. Think about that first one. He's stating what needs to be done to establish a pattern of wrongdoing. This implies that it's possible to establish a pattern of wrongdoing, and that implies that there is, in fact, a pattern of wrongdoing. Why hasn't Rove canned this guy? The only thing I can figure is that he fears that if he dismisses Luskin there will be a press frenzy looking for the reason for the dismissal and that this frenzy may draw attention to the quote.

As for the "double super secret" nonsense, what can be said except :eyes:.

[bunkerbuster1]

4. Thanks. Although my question about "believability"

...had to do more with Ryan Lizza's conclusions that Luskin is just flat-out incompetent, rather than (is it possible?) he's blowing smoke for some greater purpose.

(I'm also rather leery of stuff coming out of the New Republic, even though I'm a longtime subscriber, I'm just about done supporting them with my $$$.)

You're right about the weirdness of his remarks, and you're right to wonder why Rove hasn't fired his apparently inept ass.

[drm604]

5. The more I think about it

the more it makes sense that Rove realizes the guy is inept but believes that firing him would only make things worse by emphasizing the appearance that Rove is in trouble.

[wallwriter]

6. Digging their own graves. I'm glad someone is tracking this...