Now that our earlier theory of conflicting stories for the conversation between Karl Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin and Viveca Novak is apparently true, many fine minds in the blogosphere are advancing the notion that Luskin is the one arguing for an earlier January conversation (prior to Rove’s first GJ testimony), and that this somehow serves Rove’s purposes. Which would mean that Vivak is the one who is claiming that the conversation happened at a later time.
I just want to make sure I’ve got this straight. Robert Luskin walks into Patrick Fitzgerald’s office and says "hey, I have this great defense. I had a conversation with this Time reporter in January, 2004 that will explain everything."
So Fitgerald says "great!," walks out the door and asks Vivac "to testify under oath about conversations she had with Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, starting in May 2004."
What am I missing?
UPDATE: Let’s see if I can make this even simpler. IF LUSKIN WAS CLAIMING HE SPOKE TO VIVAC IN JANUARY FITZ WOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A SUBPOENA FOR CONVERSATIONS BEGINNING IN MAY.