Monday, July 11, 2005
"His written waiver included the world," Luskin said. "It was intended to be a global waiver. . .He wants to make sure that the special prosecutor has everyone's evidence. That reflects someone who has nothing to hide." (Emphasis added.)Now maybe the reporter asked Luskin, "Does Karl Rove have anything to hide?" and this is how Luskin responded.
But if that's not the case, the passage is curious: Luskin is citing Rove's decision to issue a waiver as evidence, essentially, that Rove isn't acting like a guilty person.
But that kind of statement doesn't in any way help establish that Rove has clean hands--something you'd think an innocent, unfairly-maligned high-level advisor to the President would want his lawyer to get across in the broadest language possible. It seems designed, instead, to chip away at the idea that Rove is guilty of wrongdoing.
To put it another way, it seems like the kind of argument constructed for the courtroom rather than one crafted for the court of public opinion.
Luskin's comments also give off a whiff of "protesting too much." After all, people who don't have anything to hide don't typically send their lawyers out to tell the press that they have nothing to hide.
So, is Luskin asserting Rove's innocence here? Or is he embarking, instead, on an effort to create reasonable doubt about Rove's guilt?