Re: Luskin letter- a response from Barbash at the Washington Post...

can someone send me a link with the original "letter" mentioned. Here is his response:

My name: I don't believe there's any mention of a letter per
se...but
rather "formal" notification.

Fred

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

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

Dear Editor:

In David Johnston's report on Luskin's announcement he
mentions a letter that the lawyer received from
Fitzgerald. However, after emailing the Washington
Post and receiving a response, they claim it was a
"formal" notification and no letter was received. My
question is which is it? Did Johnston see the letter
or ask to see it? Is the letter going to be made
public-as it should be-if it exists?

Why are the two most trusted (note-notice the sarcasm) newspapers in America reporting two different notifications?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to a
response.

:eyes:

that the two biggest papers in the country are reporting 2 different ways of notification. A letter that we all can read would show how "innocent" Rove might be.

I guess no one else finds this interesting. Is there a letter or not?

I wonder if Luskin is just the single source for this. Would "formal" notification be a letter? That is what I would conclude. It certainly would not be a casual phone call. :crazy: This is very confusing.

No one can get their story straight, and we're supposed to take Rove's attorney's word for it?

without seeing the letter? How can the Times and the Post have 2 different reports on notification. What is going on?

let's see what it has to say about Rove being cleared...

or is there a letter? Guess it depends on what you read.

who the hell knows... Did the journalist who wrote the NYT article actually see a letter, or just take Luskin's word for it? What is the real truth??? Why won't Fitz's office comment?

Although if Luskin was making this up, I suspect Fitz would issue a statement along the lines of "the investigation is continuing". Now, whether Ruskin's interpretation of what Fitz has inidicated and Fitz's interpretation may not be the same, but since Ruskin's statement still had a qualifier (i.e., anticipated) I suspect Fitz will say nothing. Maybe it means Rove will never be indicted, maybe it means what it says -- its not anticipated that Rove will be indicted. Anything beyond the plain words is simply speculation.

made it public knowledge, why would his office say no comment? I mean the cat is out of the bag, Fitz's statement is there for all to see.. What is the problem in just saying it is correct... Or what is the problem in publishing the letter Rove's Attorney received from Fitz's office?

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

Maybe their wrong, but there is mention of a letter.

Only the Times as far as I can tell. You can see the email from the Post above. The Times I dont expect to get back to me, but will they change their story?

and did the reporter see it and why can't it be published.. After all Karl is a member of staff, is at the WH, has a security clearance.. Do we not have the right to see what the Prosecutor's office said about Rove???

has picked it up.

Here is the link:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000890.php

Responding to news that Karl Rove's lawyers say they've been notified the Bush adviser won't get charged in the Plame leak investigation, Reader AB asks, "is it reasonable for them to publish the letter from Fitzgerald to prove that their statement says is, in fact, true"

We thought it was a good question -- noting, however, that news reports conflict on whether Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, received a letter from Fitzgerald. Luskin himself stated he was "formally advised," but does not state how.

-snippety snip-

Update: An earlier version of this post said that no news outlets had reported that Fitzgerald notified Luskin in writing; in fact, the New York Times reported Luskin received a letter from Fitzgerald, while others reported it was in a phone call.