Luskin May Have 'Screwed Up Tactically' - May Have Jeopardized Turdblossom! (Matt Cooper)

[kpete]

Matt Cooper Predicts Bad Things for His Buddy Karl Rove
By: emptywheel Thursday January 29, 2009 3:37 pm

It was bound to happen. Matt Cooper, to whom Karl Rove leaked Valerie Wilson's identity, is now reporting on Karl Rove again (at his new digs over at TPM). Better yet, Matt suggests Turdblossom may have miscalculated in his efforts to avoid testifying before the House Judiciary Committee.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/the-legal-intrigue-behind-rove.php

I spoke with a Washington lawyer who has dealt with many presidential privilege issues and he (or is it she?) raised some interesting questions and offered a prediction.

The first interesting point the person raised is that Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, may have made a tactical mistake in writing to White House Counsel Greg Craig for an opinion. "Be careful what you ask for," the source said. After all, Craig could come up with a rationale for Rove testifying. And why rush to Craig at all when you might prevail in the courts? True, the courts have been loathe to offer hard and fast rules in these cases but it would seem worth pursuing such a legal avenue before going to the Democratic White House for solace. My source predicted that in the end there probably will be some kind of accomodation with Rove answering questions on some topics and not on othersrather than a showdown that drags on endlessly. Interestingly, the source thought Obama's executive order on presidential records differed enough from the question of testimony that it probably would not be determinative in the end.

more from emptywheel:

See? I'm not crazy!! There's a difference between Executive Prvilege and Absolute Immunity (otherwise known as the claim that you can just blow off Congress). AndRove may not be playing this one correctly, not least because Greg Craig has a great deal of leeway in how he responds to Rove.

Jeebus, I hope Matt's source is right that Luskin screwed up tactically. Because, thus far, Luskin has been really lucky (and, I have to begrudgingly admit, good) with his defense of Rove.

more at:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/29/matt-cooper-predicts-bad-things-for-his-buddy-karl-rove/

[Xipe Totec]

1. He can still take the fifth,

If George hasn't drunk it yet.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. Luskin wrote to Craig?

Where was that reported? This is the first I've heard of it. Do you have a link for that, please?

If such a letter was sent - which would really surprise me - I will now predict that Craig will never answer it. In fact, Craig will never see it. That's how the White House handles such things.

Actually, your comparison of executive privilege (where it applies) is completely compatible with immunity, although different roads must be taken to reach the result.

Whoever told you that immunity meant you could "blow off Congress" was wrong - immunity is something bestowed by a prosecutor in exchange for testimony - there's more than one kind of immunity. Executive privilege, on the other hand, is an affirmative defense that can only be raised by the holder of the privilege.

Anyway, I am looking forward to reading about Luskin's letter to Craig. I have a feeling it's another of those stories like the ones that flew around when Fitzgerald was allegedly bringing an indictment against Rove and it was only a matter of time. A lot of DU people went completely nuts on that one, and we all know, don't we, how that one ended?

Thanks for the link.

[jobendorfer]

4. There's something I don't understand ...

Is the executive privilege fairly narrowly defined? - to allow a President to receive candid input from an adviser?
What I don't get is this:
Rove, Bolten, and Meyers get subpoenas from Congress.
They don't know what specific questions they're going to be asked, even.
They don't show up, claiming that, due to executive privilege, they don't have to appear.
Are they asserting that simply by virtue of talking with George (at some point in the past), they are immune to any and all questioning from Congress?

It seems to me that when you get a subpoena, you have to appear, and IF you're asked a question that's covered by the privilege, THEN you decline to answer.

Can anyone browsing through this thread who actually understands the law here ... enlighten me?

That would be so cool.

J.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. You got it right

That is precisely what they are claiming.

Their stance is that, by virtue of their employ in the Office of the President, they are automatically covered by the blanket of Executive Privilege which is much like the lawyer-client privilege, the priest-penitent privilege.

So far, they have not prevailed, but the case is presently in (I think) the Circuit Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit, with them as the appellants.

But, no, you don't have to know what you're going to be asked before you decline to appear.

[creeksneakers2]

15. Congress is required to inform witnesses about what they

will be asked. They don't have to give the exact questions. I'm not sure, but I think the test is if the witness is given enough warning to adequately prepare.

Supreme Court case from back in the McCarthy days.

[Howardx]

5. heres several

"Commenting on this week’s subpoena, Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, says that the issue of executive privilege is not Rove’s to resolve.

“He has previously been directed by President Bush not to appear and to assert the president’s claim of executive privilege. And that direction was reiterated by the White House counsel in mid-January,” said Mr. Luskin, a partner with Patton Boggs LLP in Washington.

“We will consult with the new counsel to the president and see if they have any differing advice and, if so, how any differences should be addressed,” he added. “If there’s a reversal of that, and if there is some legal issue over the right to exert executive privilege, they are difficult and interesting legal issues but they’re not Mr. Rove’s.”

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/01/27/capitol-hill-watchdogs-are-baring-their-teeth/

"Karl Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, said he would consult with President Obama’s White House counsel to determine the Obama administration’s stance."

http://i1.democracynow.org/2009/1/28/obama_to_face_test_on_executive

"Robert Luskin, Mr. Rove's attorney, said Mr. Rove recently received a renewed privilege assertion from President Bush, before the president left office. Mr. Luskin said he would consult with Mr. Obama's White House counsel to determine the Obama administration's stance."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123302729589718597.html

its helpful to google before you make claims, keeps you from looking like a dick.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

8. Where does it say "letter"?

This is vague language - "... will consult with White House counsel ..." is just broad enough to mislead people who don't read carefully.

It says nothing about "a letter to Gregory Craig." In fact, the articles don't even mention Craig, but a non-specific "... White House counsel..." Note the absence of the capital C in "counsel." The White House Counsel's office has many, many lawyers.

The quote in the OP was wrong. No half-experienced Washington lawyer - or any lawyer anywhere else - is going to put on paper any kind of White House request.

I thought it smelled.

I was right.

And yes, you are a dick. Pity you can't read.

[Howardx]

10. eat me

"Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had a subpoena served on Rove on Tuesday. Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, immediately forwarded the subpoena to White House counsel Greg Craig for guidance on how the Obama administration wants Rove to respond."


http://www.wvgazette.com/News/politico/200901280046

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. Oh, come now............

That's a far cry from "Luskin wrote a letter to Gregory Craig."

And, of course, this is a sentence written without any attribution save for an assertion by the author. You do realize that, don't you? Or will you have to go and find out what "attribution" means?

You're funny when your ignorance is shown up.

[Howardx]

12. you seem awfully invested in debunking this story

why do you care so much? i am quite sure that when luskin forwarded the subpeona to craig there was a letter included. thus luskin wrote a letter to craig. thus you are just another internet blowhard.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. Because

I spent a lifetime as a Washington lawyer, and when something smells bad, it's best to air it out, get it right, and go on.

Your assumption that it even happened is based on an unattributed sentence in a news report. Do you believe everything you read, because if that's so, you're a fool. I would hope that you're not a fool.

As for the namecalling, child, you can continue, but, in my world, ignoramuses like you have no place, so you no longer exist.

[yodermon]

14. you remind me of old lefty lawyer

[elizfeelinggreat]

16. that's interesting

I was trying to think of who she reminded me of, too.

[DeepBlueC]

3. Hey MC, it's "loath"

[Winterblues]

6. Republicans think everyone is like them

They think Obama of course would rule that Executive Privilege is good because he will want to use it himself..They can't perceive of anyone that would want open government and has no reason ever to request Executive Privilege..That is just inconceivable for a Republican..

[elizfeelinggreat]

7. k&r

emptywheel seems anything but crazy to me!

[bertman]

17. Isn't Craig the guy who's so friendly with Rove?