Is Robert 'GB' Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, possibly the worst lawyer in Washington?
I had to leave for the day today just as the key morning shows were getting started. But I caught a bit of the Russert/Cooper interview, in which Russert pressed Cooper on whether he'd really gotten a clear release from Rove or whether he'd somehow let himself off easy in agreeing to testify.
In making that point Russert referred to this passage in an article
in yesterday's Post
Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove, who is the president's deputy chief of staff, and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics "does not look so good" and that "it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source."
For all I know, Luskin may <$Ad$> be right in his appraisal of Cooper's actions and motives. (I said a couple days ago that Luskin's inept public lawyering
may have given Cooper the out he was looking for.) But how precisely does this help his client?
Luskin's point here is that Cooper burned his source to avoid jail.
But accusing him now of burning his source simply telegraphs what we suggested
a few days ago -- that he and his client wanted Cooper to keep his mouth shut notwithstanding Luskin's voluble public claims that they were happy to have him talk.
Before Cooper sang, holding him to his commitment may have made sense. But since he has, Luskin might at least reap whatever benefit there might be of claiming he had nothing to hide or asked Cooper to come forward. But Luskin, having goofed into giving Cooper an out, now seems intent on letting everybody know that Rove did so unwillingly.