Buried quietly in the CNN story on Vivak's deposition today was this little nugget:
Fitzgerald deposed Luskin last Friday. Time and Luskin refused to answer CNN's questions about Luskin's conversation with Novak.How intriguing. So, Luskin was deposed first on Friday. Fitz went back to the G/J for more than three hours yesterday. Then spoke with Vivak today.
Wouldn't you give a whole helluva lot to know what was discussed? Ooooh, I can feel the screws tightening.
UPDATE: Folks, just because Luskin (or anyone for that matter) is deposed, it doesn't mean that they are a target. (Or even close to being one.) It simply means that Fitz needed information they have for the furtherance of his investigation.
It is highly unusual, however, for an attorney for a potential target to be a witness. Normally, you simply take that attorney's word via a proffer of information and investigate from there. Judges are generally very reluctant to allow subpoena of an attorney for witness purposes unless (1) the client agrees and signs a waiver allowing such testimony (usually for particular evidentiary purposes) and (2) the testimony is necessary for a narrow evidentiary reason.
I can't help but wonder if this was voluntary testimony -- or if there was a motion to quash a subpoena somewhere that hasn't been reported as yet that Luskin lost. (And if so, what was the grounds for subpoena and the information requested?) That this hasn't been reported on lends weight to the voluntary nature of the proceedings as the likely explanation.
For my money, this may be an indication that we have differing stories between Luskin and Vivak -- and Fitz wanted both of them to be forced to tell them under oath. That puts a whole new level of truthful pressure on the storyteller, I can tell you that. Veddy, veddy interesting.
UPDATE #2: Something that I should have made clear earlier, but is done quite well by reader Thorny1:
A lawyer can also be deposed about something the lawyer knows that is not protected by the attorney client privilege--such as something that someone who is not the client may have said to the lawyer. OR something the lawyer observed.This is absolutely correct. Vivak and Luskin could have discussed any number of matters outside of issues covered by attorney client privilege. And Luskin would be free at any time to discuss those -- and testify to them. But it does still raise a question regarding continued representation efficacy for an attorney who has now been required to give a deposition and might, potentially, become a witness should criminal charges be filed. This just smells more and more like a last ditch, all out save Rover's ass attempt to me. Will it work? Would Fitz call a G/J back in for more than three hours of discussion if he thought it was working? Guess we'll see...but my money is not on the smoke and mirrors act between Luskin and Rover.