BREAKING: ROVE'S LAWYER MAY HAVE SCREWED UP AGAIN!

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/12/3/143025/559

So Luskin supposedly "learns" about Cooper and Rove's conversation from Viveca Novak (whose supporters seem to be fighting back against Luskin's spin) in February of 2004, yet for some reason Rove still doesn't mention it during his first grand jury testimony which took place after Luskin learned about this? Luskin may have made matters worse for the Rover.

Heh heh.

"Luskin may have made matters worse for the Rover."

All the stories originate with someone trying to either help Rove or Libby.

"... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

I believe this is how David Schuster framed the issue that Fitzgerald is trying to determine.

I'm watching the video and thinking, "Oh, yeah, right, bad memory my a**."

Rove has a mind like a steel trap when it comes to who said what, when they said it, where they said it and to whom they said it. That's why he's such a formidable enemy. To entertain the notion that Rove would slip up like they're suggesting? No effin' way.

Shut up. Both attorney and client. Every word out of your mouth is another rail in the fence that will snare you.

Accusations do not matter. Indictments do not matter. The only thing that matters is a conviction, and the more you talk the more likely that becomes.

Unfortunately, Luskin needs to head off an indictment as well to protect his client's cushy job, and his efforts to do so will only make it more difficult, should he fail, to secure an acquittal.

I hope he at least explained this to his client in writing, otherwise it's hello professional responsibility board.

than an undereducated one.

Pigface Rove is nothing if not savvy. Such people are used to wielding their own power, and sometimes they feel that they don't have to stand behind their lawyer--whom they may regard as just another of their employees.

Pigface's entire career has been made on image construction and image destruction. So it seems quite natural that he would, when in trouble, think first of his image. This means he might go about solving his problem the same way he goes about performing his paid job: planting news stories, stirring gossip, manipulating reporters, and then watching the war of words go on while he sits back insulating himself as best he can from any consequences.

Luskin probably saw his job as not only defending Pigface in court, but also as trying to help him keep his paid job as White House Big Cheese. I think that's where the problems arose: he felt he had to help his client play the public relations game simultaneously with playing the much more serious court game. And let's face it, lawyers are usually a lot better at creating persuasive pleadings for judges than they are at creating persuasive stories for the public to swallow.

an accurate and real story on Rove. Till then, I not buying this story.

Did Time's Viveca Novak intervene in leak case, aiding Rove, while covering story?

Recent revelations in the CIA leak investigation indicate that Time magazine Washington correspondent Viveca Novak may have injected herself in the investigation by alerting a lawyer for White House senior adviser Karl Rove in mid-2004 that her colleague, Time White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, might be forced to disclose to a grand jury what Rove had told him about then-undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. Novak reportedly warned Rove attorney Robert Luskin that Rove could face legal scrutiny over omitting mention of the conversation with Cooper in his own grand jury testimony, thereby providing Luskin with information that might prove crucial to Rove's defense in the case. Novak never disclosed her conversation with Luskin or her knowledge of Rove's conversation with Cooper to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald or to Time readers, despite working on several articles about the case after her reported conversation with Luskin.

The revelation in a December 2 New York Times article regarding Novak's conversation is significant for at least two reasons. First, Novak, an experienced journalist working for a prestigious publication, disclosed to Rove's lawyer information that she did not give to her readers and that Cooper would zealously try to withhold for more than a year on the basis of the purportedly sacrosanct anonymity agreement between a reporter and a source. Second, Novak may have affirmatively helped Rove -- a source the magazine covers and will continue to cover -- beat a perjury rap, not by exonerating him through a story in the course of her job, but by providing his lawyer with information in a private conversation.

According to the Times, in the "summer or early fall of 2004," Novak informed Luskin that Rove "might face legal problems because of potential testimony from Mr. Cooper, her colleague." In that conversation, Novak and Luskin discussed the fact that Rove and Cooper had talked about Plame shortly before Plame's identity was revealed by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak (no relation) in a July 14, 2003, column. Luskin and Viveca Novak are "friends," according to a November 29 Washington Post article.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512020016

If that's true, she's probably lying about not be related to Robert Novak. Or else she worships him and his ilk.