Cycloptichorn wrote:No, a leak doesn't equal a lie. The 'lie' is that v. Novak's testimony would exonerate Rove.
If Luskin has a belief that Novak's testimony will exonerate his client, how is that a lie? Maybe it will ... maybe it won't. I've presented many a defense in court that was not successful. That does not mean my argument lacked merit, and certainly does not mean it was a "lie."
Quote:And the notion that Luskin isn't the source of claims that V. Novak is helpful to Rove's defense is ridiculous; of course he, or someone in his employ, is the source of those claims. He just didn't want to go 'on the record,' and why should he? The point gets across just the same, and when it is revealed as a lie, he doesn't look as bad. The anonymous sourcing policy of major papers really kills me.
Maybe someone in his employ
is the source of the leak. I don't know, and nor do I care. The point is, it is not evident there is any lie being told by Luskin, or by the two anonymous sources, whoever they may be.
Quote:Sorry if I don't presume that Luskin, or anyone who would defend Rove, is a nice, upstanding person.
Cycloptichorn
No, it appears you presume whomever defends Rove is NOT a nice, upstanding person.
The fact that you believe the character of the client defines the character of the attorney, demonstrates that you really don't know what you are talking about. I've represented many persons who I did not personally like, nor did I agree with what they did, and certainly not with what they were charged with. This is true with nearly every lawyer in the world. But criminal defendants are entitled to a legal defense, whether the client is guilty or not, and it is absurd for you to call into question the integrity of an attorney simply based upon his client. [/soapbox]
