I didn't get from this story how Luskin's tactic is intended to work. What does it matter that he had a phone conversation with another Time reporter? Does that affect whether Rove lied or not?

In the 2000 campaign, Bush promised that his administration would bring honor and integrity back to the White House - an obvious slap at President Clinton. But now in 2005, there is NO integrity left in the administration, NO honor, NO honesty. It just keeps getting worse.

Heresay and...breaching attorney/client privilege?

I guess if you want a mistrial, maybe...

however, from what I read, Luskin's strategy seems be based on Rove appealing a conviction on the basis of incompetent counsel.

Maybe Scherer might want to add some real legal experts to his rolodex.

If Luskin is indeed a percipient witness to an event that could be used as an alibi or excuse, there is no way he is going to be able to represent Rove at trial, should Rove be indicted. Luskin is reputed to be a pretty competent counsel, which begs the question, would he allow Rove to take the stand in his own defense? Rove, like Martha Stewart before him, is one of those people who thinks he knows better than everyone else. Martha Stewart ran her mouth to the Feds, thinking the same old bullshit was going to make them go away; it didn't and it cost her dearly. Rove's defense should not include taking the stand. Fitzgerald will destroy Rove if he does.

The basic legal problems underpinning this strange turn of events was more fully documented in Salon's own War Room over a week ago. I am very curious to read about the legal ramifications of Luskin turning himself in an alibi for his client, and I would love it if Salon actually published an article on it. This piece however is a superficial, unbalanced gloss that offers haphazard notions in place of serious and authoritative legal discourse for the intelligent well-informed lay-person. It certainly doesn’t help that the article doesn’t' even attempt to cover the basic facts of the situation. Come on Salon and Scherer, I'm sure your capable of doing real research and producing and an article worth reading rather then this lazy fill piece. As it is, this barely rises to the level of a Gentlemen's C.

Mr. Luskin may be in serious ethical trouble himself. No story has yet said where the intensive search for emails took place. If all of the emails had been forwarded to Luskin before his conversation with Novak, I would suggest that he may be investigated for concealing evidence himself. I'm not sure what Luskin is thinking, but he needs a lawyer.