home

My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:32:26 PM EST
Tags: Jason Leopold, Karl Rove, Mark Corallo (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As TalkLeft readers know, I try to stick to analyzing news rather than breaking news. I'm just not that kind of journalist. But Jason Leopold's article today reporting Rove has been indicted was filled with such unique detail (analysis here) I wanted to know if it was true. Who better to ask than Robert Luskin, even though I don't know him from Adam. I got his phone number from Jason, and here's what happened. Shorter version: I doubt I'll ever do this again.

******
7:55 pm. I just got off the phone with Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin. I'm sure I made a new enemy. I called at 7:47 pm my time which is 9:47 his time. In a run-on sentence, I introduced myself as a criminal defense lawyer and said I was calling about Jason Leopold's article because if it wasn't true, I wanted to write that it wasn't true. He said, "Why are you calling me at 10:00 on a Saturday night. It's so inappropriate." I apologized and said because it's an important story and if it's not true I wanted to say so. I looked at the clock on my computer and saw it was 9:48 or so his time.

He said something like "It's completely not true and you shouldn't be calling me at 10:00 on a Saturday night. You should be calling Mark Corallo [Rove's media strategist.]

But here's the thing. I didn't even have a chance to explain which of Jason's articles I was writing about or that Jason had reported Rove was indicted. For all I know, Luskin hasn't seen that article and his denial pertained to an earlier article written by Jason.

Luskin continued to chastise me for calling so late on a Saturday night, saying "This is Washington, you don't call people at 10:00 on a Saturday night." I apologized again and said I was in Denver and it was two hours earlier and it hadn't occurred to me that it would be too late to call Washington. He said "Well it should have occurred to you." I asked if I could call him tomorrow. He said "No" and hung up.

Now you know why I always say I don't break news, I analyze it. I made an exception because I knew this would be a big deal in the blogosphere and I simply wanted to verify or refute it given that the mainstream media had not reported on it despite a few hours passing since Jason's article went up on Truthout.

I did leave a voice-mail message for Mark Carrallo but I doubt I'll get a return call. And no, I'm not going to call either of them back. I'm going back to what I do best, link, analyze and opine based on others' news reporting and information from sources I know personally.

Update: If at first you don't succeed....Luskin does answer my questions after all. I also spoke to Mark Corallo and to Jason Leopold. And journalist Joe Lauria of the Sunday Times in London writes an article in the Washington Post about reading my post on my conversation with Mark Corallo and suddenly realizing he was probably the journalist Corallo described Jason as impersonating.

< Duke Accuser DNA Belongs to Her Boyfriend | Mother's Day Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin | 53 comments (53 topical)
    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:09:08 PM EST
    It was a very logical and reasonable thing to do. It also gives us a window to the MSM way of doing business. A story of this magnitude should have everyone calling. But I bet no one has because they are spoonfed their reporting. "This is Washington, you don't call people at 10:00 on a Saturday night." This is the time we usually reserve for poker and hookers Oi

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:11:52 PM EST
    Kudos to you for nerve and bravery. Buit, you should have called Jason Leopold instead. Jason claims to be a journalist and 10:00 on a Saturday night is a reasonable time to ask him if he's got the story straight, or is he out of his freaking mind.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:16:33 PM EST
    "You don't call people at 10:00 on a Saturday night"? WTF? That sounds like something a snippy mother tells a forward girl calling her thirteen-year-old son. You have to wonder how all the moving and shaking gets done in DC, what with this respect for early hours and all. No doubt you don't call on Sunday either, cause that's "a family day."

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:28:08 PM EST
    since when is 10pm on a saturday nite too late to call in d.c.? not in my lifetime. geez, things are just getting started then! let me guess, he was already in bed, so he could make it to the 7am mass on sunday? yeah, sure. libby, why would i go to guy who wrote the story, rather than the attorney of the subject of said story, to confirm the author's "facts"? what's he going to do, say his story was wrong, but he wrote it anyway? probably not. when i audit a company, i don't rely on their assertions, i go to unrelated, uninterested third parties, to get confirmation. it's the logical thing to do.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    Libby, I've been e-mailing with Jason for hours. He is always available for correspondence and accessible.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:34:56 PM EST
    Well, if Fitzy left them yesterday, telling them Rove had 24 hours, we oughta be seeing his mug shots about now. No? Doesn't he have to go in as soon as he's indicted to be printed, etc.? Couldn't someone shoot over to the police station and find out? Or, am I, like, just so old fashioned?

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:35:18 PM EST
    I live in DC and people call me a lot later than that. Luskin is being a pompous donkey.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    Three possible responses: 1) Sorry, I'm a criminal defense lawyer and if there were an article of this significance about my client, I would be working on it at 10:00 Saturday night. 2) Hey, no big thing, have fun at the Watergate 3) Okay, I'll put you down and not denying it. Have a good time at the Res Ipse Loquitur.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:40:14 PM EST
    The indictment could have been returned Wednesday and filed under seal with a request for any arrest warrant to be stayed pending his voluntary surrender at the courthouse, pre-trial office, marshal's office or FBI office, however they do it in DC. He'll get a p.r. bond, so that's not an issue. He just needs to be booked and fingerprinted and mug-shot'd at some point the day he surrenders.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:19:34 PM EST
    Heh. I'm remembering a squabble between about five of us at my old firm, and one guy hopping up and down, going, "Res ipsa! Res ipsa! ..." The receptionist was gaping at us. Problem is: This res ipsa loquitur has been speaking for itself for months, and I can't tell what has changed about that. The Zen masters warned about this sort of thing. Sigh.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:23:18 PM EST
    It was brave to try, and generous to be so open about the experience. I bet Colbert was unnerved too...

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#12)
    by joejoejoe on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:31:50 PM EST
    Luskin's Rules of Conduct Do... Accept gold bars as payment from your client. Don't... Call at 10PM on a Saturday.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dick Durata on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:35:31 PM EST
    Chalk it up to a learning experience. We want to see you back there on the front lines, TalkLeft. Next time you'll nail it. And talking about your failures is so bloggy.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    Oh hell, call him back Sunday afternoon. He'll probably have his spin strategy nailed down by then. If not, he may offer to call you back.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:51:45 PM EST
    I'm just wondering, if you've been corresponding with him all night... Is he standing by the story? Do you believe him?

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:55:01 PM EST
    Yes, he's standing by the story. And yes, I believe him. As to when it will be announced, that's a different story, because of Bush's speech planned for Monday night. They may hold it until Tuesday or even after.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:02:50 PM EST
    Great! I hope you're right, of course. But it does feel like a story this big would have been confirmed by someone else after 5 hours. Is Jason a real reporter? Any idea how he got this insanely big scoop? I'm sure I'm not the only one dying for more answers.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:11:44 PM EST
    As Larry David would say ... "you called after the cutoff"! I also find it hilarious that a guy who will take gold bars as payment from drug dealers would balk at answering a call at 9:48 on Saturday night!

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:18:48 PM EST
    He answered the phone... he was taking calls at 10pm...

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kewalo on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:22:05 PM EST
    I've had jobs where I had to 'cold call' people. I know how scary it is so I fully understand why you would never want to do it again. But I appreciate it tons. Thank you for trying to find out. My birthday was yesterday and all I wanted was an indictment. I'm still hoping I got what I asked for. I'm glad you believe him, I trust your judgement.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:22:41 PM EST
    TL: As to when it will be announced, that's a different story, because of Bush's speech planned for Monday night. They may hold it until Tuesday or even after. I'd hate to be Tony Snow on Monday morning.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:28:40 PM EST
    I highly doubt that they're in control of the timing of the announcement. Right now, I want some details on Leopold. The story doesn't smell right.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 01:21:35 AM EST
    I'd just note that they're always making a big fuss about the hours they work--18 hour days, weekends etc. The notion that there are times that are "unavailable" completely flies in the face of that trope.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#24)
    by roxtar on Sun May 14, 2006 at 02:28:29 AM EST
    Bet ya' a bottle of foine Irish whiskey that he billed an hour for answering that call.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 03:39:46 AM EST
    "Iorish" Good morning to ye Roxtar, would it be some little biteen of the teaching that you be requiring? And is not the first thing that you have to be understanding is never use but the lonely little word thats all by itself with nothing in the world to do, when you can employ a multitude of the wee fellars?

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 03:59:17 AM EST
    You called him at his office or at his home Jeralyn? If you called him at home at 10pm then yes obviously that was inappropriate not to say downright rude and if I was him I'd block your phone. For those upthread saying its NOT inappropriate to call that late I'd like to know where the line is for them. 11pm? Midnight? 2am? How about if I called Jeralyn right now, which is 6am my time, 5am her time? I'm going to guess it was at his office. Was it? Because obviously if he was at his office that late on a Saturday then that would support the idea that Rove was indeed on the grill. If you called the man at home - which is what his reaction sounds like, after all it isn't inappropriate to call someone at the office no matter what time it is - and he answered your question "No" then his answer is no.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#27)
    by roger on Sun May 14, 2006 at 05:53:55 AM EST
    10 pm on a Saturday? Definately out of line, everyone deserves time off of work. That being said- what an idiot!! A smart lawyer would have been much more civil about it, you never know what makes its way into print! Makes me happy, knowing that Rove has a lawyer who cant maintain his composure. Good luck in court!

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:09:49 AM EST
    So am I completely off base with my understanding that lawyers can be disbarred if they are caught telling lies? Luskin's denial of Jason Leopold's story was complete and unequivocal,("I'ts completely not true and you shouldn't be calling me at 10 pm"). If he told a lie, he could be risking his career. --But on the other hand, it seems to me some lawyers lie all the time (apologies Jerralyn and other honorable lawyers out there, I don't mean you!) Anyway, above all I want to thank you for addressing this whole difficult question in such a straightforward way. It's refreshing to hear about someone who is as puzzled as we all are, and is willing to explain what she is trying to do to reach clarity!

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:21:56 AM EST
    I think his "This is Washington..." comment funny. You don't have to live in DC to go to bed early for any number of reasons. In fact. I put myself away last night very shortly after 10. This is a no brainer. Calling his office at 10PM is acceptable. Calling his home at 10PM is not. The owner of the phone in the person's home has every right to set the guidelines. And I would assume he has a NPN, so he has an expectation of privacy The real question is does "no" mean "no?"

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 07:54:00 AM EST
    The owner of the phone in the person's home has every right to set the guidelines.
    I think the sky may fall, but I must agree.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:08:54 AM EST
    No matter how high and mighty the players, no matter how powerful, they are still just...people. And they tend to behave like... people. Jason has spent years on this case. In all likelihood he has formed a relationship with somebody... perhaps a typist or a receptionist in one of the respective law offices... who sees things and reports them only to him. How could the MSM ever seek out such a person for "verification"? S/he is a source for one person only. And an honorable reporter would never give up the source just to validate the story. Undoubtedly both parties wish to release this news at a time most suitable to their respective agendas. Thus Luskin, caught unawares and panicked by a dangerous, premature leak of unfo, is rudely dismissive to a well-known attorney who is universally admired and respected. And because of this new age of information, we "ordinary people" are privileged to witness events not just as they unfold but BEFORE they unfold. It's a wonderful time to be alive. And the coming week will be, I suspect, wonderfully diverting.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:09:28 AM EST
    Yes, I immediately thought of the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode, too. TalkLeft, you know how lawyers will attack on an issue that has nothing to do with the real issue. That's all he was doing. See, it was YOUR falult he's being indicted, and if you hadn't called so close to 10:00, he wouldn't be! The government with all its preaching about "remorse" and "taking responsibivlity" doesn't like to do so: In addition to not being able to pinpoint whose fault it was that you were wrongly convicted, many of these people are protected by doctrines of immunity. So you can't sue the prosecutor, if he was doing his job in prosecuting your case. You can't sue the police, either, as long as he or she was doing their job in investigating your case. ... See, Rove was just doing his job, and you don't call at 10:00 PM, or any other time, to question it.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:18:08 AM EST
    First, I believe that it is legal for telemarketers to call until 9pm. "Why are you calling me at 10:00 on a Saturday night. It's so inappropriate." Second, 9:47 pm is not 10 pm.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:39:40 AM EST
    Whe I don't want to take calls, I simply turn the ringer off on my landline and cellphone. If I see either one flashing I'll look at the call display might decide whether to answer. If I answer and then get snappy to the person who called, it's because they touched an exposed nerve.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#35)
    by scribe on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:03:41 AM EST
    TL: IMHO, you did the right thing on this. On reflection, I think you had to - initially I had thought it was right up to the edge. I opine you may have felt you owed some sort of duty to readers (and, for that matter, the subject of the blogposts) to make sure the allegation of an indictment was thoroughly sourced and investigated. FWIW, if one reads all the way down on Leopold's Truthout articles, he almost always has a sentence there, stating if someone feels they have been treated unfairly in the column, they will get space in the column to set it straight. So far as I know, no one has ever taken him up on that. If I'm not exactly accustomed to it, at least I've had clients call at oh-dark-thirty so I know that, when you are a lawyer (especially for someone prominent) you are never off-duty. One of the things I was taught as a newbie was that you always took the call when the client called. Hear what they had to say, no matter when. It sucks for family life, but it builds loyal clients willing to immediately pay large bills without quibbling. (That's cynical, but that's the way it is.) Luskin had no reason to beef about being called - once one gives one's number to a reporter, one can expect to be contacted at odd hours (and that the number will slowly make its way around to others). Luskin's pique likely stemmed from the story getting out and/or his being called at home by media outside of his control. The pique may also have stemmed from TL's self-identification as a criminal defense attorney - it could have passed through Luskin's mind that TL was doing the Gloria Allred, otherwise trying to poach Luskin's client, or trying to set up Luskin himself. Not that she was doing that or would, but when a lawyer gets a call from a stranger identifying themself as a lawyer and asking pointed questions about your work (especially about a prominent case/client), the fences of suspicion go up instantly. Those fences are often marked by hostility. And, if one should think Luskin was being disingenuous or worse, he wasn't. He was just being a lawyer. Try changing the context to him being a part of the team of lawyers working on a corporate takeover. Someone (who might or might not be known to lawyer) calls, asking if lawyer is available to comment on something or discuss something. The caller may know something about the pending takeover (maybe a rumor or maybe material non-public information - who knows), but caller needs to confirm that or to get something said publicly so he can trade without worrying too much about being accused of insider trading. If lawyer says anything, lawyer could be on the hook for insider trading liability, even though he told caller nothing. Which is why so often reporters' calls are "not returned before press time", "the lawyer is traveling", or similar non-substantive, non-committal answers are all the press gets to report. There, my term paper of the day.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patriot Daily on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    I know everyone is anxious for the Rovian frog march, but let's remember that MSM is quite slow on picking up major stories, if they do in fact report it. It is a frequent occurrence that PD finds a major story by AP or Knight Ridder, but it can take a day or 2 or more before NY Times or Wash. Post reports the same story. When it comes to reports by Jason or Murray Waas, it can take even longer. So, it can be days, not just hours, before MSM picks up a story. And, if Fitz told Rove to pack his bags, there may be behind-the-scenes preparations allowed to Rove. One interesting comment over at Huffington on blog post on Jason's report was that apparently Rove was to address some organization this Monday, but his name has now been removed by the web site. Could be nothing, or perhaps part of those preparations:
    "By the way, Rove was scheduled to speak at the America hating American Enterprise Institute on Monday. It appears they have now removed the details of his appearance from their website. If his appearance has been cancelled we might be looking to a great Monday. Let's hope!"
    And, Jeralyn, so cool that you called!

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:36:36 AM EST
    I find it encouraging that Luskin was so very crabby with you, Jeralyn. After all, if he had just cut some fabulous deal to keep Rove out of the slammer wouldnt he be in a better mood?

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:47:33 AM EST
    You did the right thing all round. Your allegiance to your readers and your 'mission' (for lack of a better word) trumps any BS etiquette. Luskin is a public figure not was it too late. He did get you though, nothing that he said was sincere, as he was on the job. Very predictable comeback on his end and not surprising that you fell for his attack as you are more human than lawyer. He smelled this right away and went for the easiest way to throw you off balance. Would you do this again? As bad as he made you feel, I imagine if a similar thing came up you would do the right thing and try to verify a breaking story of such great importance before posting. Even if it was 9:48 on a Sat night. Sheesh, poor Luskin. You took a big risk posting this because that is the kind of person you are and we love you for it. HAPPY MOTHERS DAY.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#39)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    He sounded pissed. Good. If I don't want to talk at 10 PM I don't answer. Simple as that. Hey Luskin, If you don't know who Jeralyn Merritt is, you are WAY behind the curve. And stay out of medicine. 10 PM is when the calls START. 3 AM: "This is nurse Able. You patient hasn't urinated for four hours." "Neither have I!" (slams phone down)

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:45:02 AM EST
    I wouldnt be at all suprised if his phone had already been ringing off the wall. Interrupting his bondage session probobly put him in snit too. Jeralyn, thy name is Intrepid.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    If, as Jason Leopold reported, Rove's attorneys were told on Friday by Fitz that Rove had 24 hours to get his affairs in order, what does that mean. Could it be that he was already arrested? What is the 24 hour deadline about? Any thoughts? Anyone?

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:09:08 AM EST
    goodasgold-My guess is that here we are talking business days. Getting ones affairs in order would depend on things being open like banks and stuff. He has Monday, after the Chimp'ds speech he is toast. Fitzgerald has shown grace.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:11:37 AM EST
    No, he's not going to be arrested in the true sense, he'll surrender somewhere at a mutually agreeable time. But, as to the 24 hours, here's one possible scenario that from my update to my post on Leopold's article:
    Here's another scenario if Jason's article is accurate, and it's just my speculation as to how this could have played out: The grand jury indicts Karl Rove Wednesday. On Friday, Fitz meets with Luskin to offer a final plea deal. He tells Luskin what the charges are, but does not provide a copy of the actual Indictment. They haggle and haggle but can't come to a final resolution. Fitz gives his final offer, and tells Luskin either he takes the plea by a certain time over the weekend, or the Indictment is unsealed Monday morning and Rove needs to make arrangements to surrender. Fitzgerald then leaves. Luskin, Rove and other members of Team Rove then spend many hours, perhaps well into the early morning hours of Saturday (hence Jason's 15 hour statement), debating what Rove should do. Rove finally decides to decline the offer, either not willing either to admit to certain facts or believing that some of the charges in the Indictment are unfair and legally unsupportable.
    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#44)
    by nolo on Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:26:53 AM EST
    I wouldn't have liked being at the receiving end of Luskin's snit, but I still think it's funny as hell that you pissed him off, and pretty telling to boot. And I agree with edger-- if he hadn't been taking calls at 10:00, he wouldn't have picked up the phone. Methinks it wasn't the hour of the call that had his undies in a bunch, but that you were the bazillionth caller asking the same questions.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#45)
    by Batocchio on Sun May 14, 2006 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    A few thoughts... Having grown up in D.C., yes, a great deal of the town does shut down at 10 pm, so I found that funny. Although, as other posters have pointed out, Luskin was still accepting calls and it's far less likely that Luskin is truly one of the 10 pm cutoff crowd. Yes, one could view the call as slightly rude, but it wasn't a social call. Considering the professional nature of it and the fact that you're offering Luskin the opportunity to set the record straight, his reaction seems disproportionate. It sounds like he was primarily using the time as an excuse to scold you. What I find most interesting is your observation that he objected to Leopold's article without bothering to confirm which one it was. Perhaps Mr. Luskin is not in the best of moods right now.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    maybe he was settling down with some popcorn and hot cocoa to watch al gore on satnitelive... in my mind, his testiness speaks volumes.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2006 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    et al - It isn't the call, but the ringer. No, he shouldn't have to turn off his ringer. There might be an emergancy he would need to know about. His response to the call was over the top, I would have just hung up and not responded unless there was a second call. BTW - Telemarketers can't call any time if the number is listed on the National Do Not Call Registry

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    Well, my utmost respect goes out to you, Jeralyn, for mustering up that kind of nerve. I am most appreciative as I'm the person whose comments you linked to at the Daily Kos ("Why Rove Will Never Be Named a Target") when I posted my hypothesis that Luskin would never admit that Rove was a target, but instead revert to "no comment" or could not be reached for comment. If only we had gotten a "no comment." However, it's becoming clearer to me that Luskin is going to treat this differently than Libby's attorney. But, we still can infer and perhaps even verify through his referral to communications crisis Corallo. He was initially hired right before the Libby indictment was announced and I suspect they were already preparing for the possibility of Rove's indictment then. Corallo was to become the new spokesman. He's pretty much laid low until Rove's most recent testimony in front of the GJ. I'd say crisis management is at hand. So, if you can bear it, call Covallo's office on Monday morning. You should, at least, get a secretary then who just might, if nothing else, say "no comment." :)

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    Luskin didn't want to talk about the real facts and story so he kept harping on the time of the call. It's an old lawyers trick--talk about the strongest point you have. That's it for him, the day and time of your call. I think you hit pay dirt and don't feel bad about it for one second. Good reporting work in my opinion. Thanks.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#50)
    by Patriot Daily on Sun May 14, 2006 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    JASON MEANT 24 BUSINESS HOURS Will Pitt spoke to Jason and clarified some facts. He says it will be "Monday at the very earliest, but more like Tuesday or Wednesday." IMHO Probably after Bush's immigration address monday.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:37:17 PM EST
    Byron York I talked with Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo, who told me the story was completely baseless. Part of our conversation:
    Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday? No. Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday? No. Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives? No. Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives? No. Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted? No.
    Or more succinctly, no means no.

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun May 14, 2006 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    Still one last question begs but wasn't asked, interestingly enough, "Has Karl Rove received a target letter?" Not that I'm handing the benefit of the doubt to Leopold, but the line of questioning all rests on the first question which bases the entire line of questions on this taking place on Friday. For if that were not the case, that this is all based on Friday's activities then there is no possible way that Corallo could have responded in the negative to "Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives?"

    Re: My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:21:29 AM EST
    Subject's Challenge Derails Reporter's Book Project By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 9, 2005; Page C07 Jason Leopold got a journalistic black eye three years ago when Salon retracted a story the freelancer had written about a Bush administration official, saying it could not authenticate the piece.

    My Non-Conversation With Robert Luskin | 53 comments (53 topical)