In 18 newspaper articles and 12 television appearances, Luskin has defended Clinton and/or attacked Starr.  Here are four illustrative newspaper examples:
 

(1) “While the federal perjury statute applies to private lawsuits, prosecutors rarely bring such cases to court, generally leaving it to litigants and judges to sort out who is lying and take appropriate action. ‘If I’m the prosecutor that case is brought to, I would decline the case because it seems to me that you ought not to be indicting the president of the United States for things that you don't indict Joe Six- Pack for,’ said criminal defense lawyer Robert Luskin.” Ruth Marcus, “Allegations Against Clinton Could Lead To Impeachment, Prosecution,” Wash. Post Jan. 22, 1998.

(2) “Robert Luskin, a former federal prosecutor who is a defense attorney in Washington, said Starr's inquiry has gone out of bounds. ‘These are incredibly intrusive tactics that tend to be reserved by prosecutors for the most serious cases involving the most serious offenses,’ Luskin said. ‘In real life, you would never see a prosecutor using these tactics to pursue these kinds of allegations, even if he decided to investigate the case.’” John Henry, “Has Starr gone too far?” Houston Chronicle Feb. 15, 1998.

(3) “At the same time, legal experts said it was difficult to imagine Starr bringing a federal obstruction of justice case against Clinton or his partisans for what appears to be an exercise of their First Amendment rights. ‘I’m stupefied,’ said criminal defense lawyer Robert Luskin, a former federal prosecutor. ‘What incredible bad judgment.  I don’t think you use the grand jury authority to harass people who are criticizing you. ...If the idea is that somehow you can’t accuse the prosecutor of being an unscrupulous dog without trying to obstruct justice, that’s crazy.’” Ruth Marcus, “Legal Battle in Clinton Probe Getting ‘Much Too Personal,’” Wash. Post Feb. 25, 1998.

(4) “Although [perjury] applies to civil as well as criminal cases, prosecutions are rarely brought for obstructing a civil case, like Ms. Jones's. "I've never tried a civil case where someone wasn't lying about something," said Robert D. Luskin, a trial lawyer here, "but you don't say, 'I'm going to call in a U.S. attorney now.' " David E. Rosenbaum, “The Three Little Words That Becloud a Presidency,” N.Y. Times Aug. 13, 1998.

(5) Ruth Marcus, “As Ginsburg Broadcasts, Colleagues Air Their Disbelief,” Wash. Post   Feb. 2, 1998.
(6) Brian McGrory, “Clinton Prosecutors Enter Pivotal Stage of Investigation,” Boston    Globe Feb. 4, 1998.
(7) Laurie Asseo, “Controversy Fuels Career of TV Lawyers,” A.P. Feb. 5, 1998.
(8) Brian McGrory, “Lewinsky Lawyer Tells Altered Tale,” Boston Globe Mar. 6, 1998.
(9) Peter Baker, “Starr Vows Vigorous Pursuit Despite Jones Suit Dismissal,” Wash. Post   Apr. 3, 1998.
(10) William Safire, “The Return of Joe Six-Pack,” N.Y. Times May 3, 1998.
(11) Brian McGrory, “Lewinsky Seeks Credibility Boost,” Boston Globe Jun. 11, 1998.
(12) Larry Margasak, “Report Denies Clinton Asked for Lies,” A.P. Jul. 28, 1998.
(13) Brian McGrory, “Lewinsky Granted Wide Immunity,” Boston Globe Jul. 29, 1998.
(14) Brian Blomquist, “Bill Will Talk Sex, On Tape,” N.Y. Post Jul. 30, 1998.
(15) Ruth Marcus, “Clinton’s Fate May Ride on Tough-to-Prove Obstruction Case,”    Wash. Post Aug. 7, 1998.
(16) Louis Branson, “White House Silent on Monica Testimony,” Scotsman Aug. 8, 1998.
(17) Peter Stone, “More Headaches for Clinton and Gore?” Nat. Journal Aug. 22, 1998.
(18) Brian McGrory, “Starr’s Arsenal is All Innuendo, Clinton Backers Say,” Boston Globe   Oct. 14, 1998.

(1) “Burden of Proof,” CNN May 26, 1998.
[ROGER]COSSACK: Well, Bob, you're a criminal defense attorney...these allegations... they seem almost uncheckable.  If Jim McDougal was going to be called as a witness by the independent counsel, what kind of a witness would he have made?

ROBERT LUSKIN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I mean, I suppose the only thing less credible when the snitch is a dead snitch, so I suppose it would have been better in front of the independent counsel than he is now, but I suppose it depends upon the corroboration that [McDougal co-author] Curtis [Wilkie] says that he may or may not have. ...I don't think a prosecutor, in those circumstances, even if he believed that the witness was telling the truth, would bring a charge based on that.  If there is nothing there to corroborate, no one else to corroborate it, and a witness who has a track record like McDougal's, at the end of the day, even if you believe in your gut that it's true, you throw up your hands and say I can't go with this.”

(2) “Burden of Proof,” CNN Sep. 23, 1998.
COSSACK: Bob Luskin, we've heard reports that some of the Linda Tripp tapes may, and I say may, have been doctored, erased, gone over. As a defense, what import does that have?

ROBERT LUSKIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it's got huge import. In the first place, obviously, it calls into question anything that is on the tape, it also obviously calls into question her personal credibility on any matters which she's testified to.  And, obviously, also it's a criminal offense, and can be charged that way, indeed it has been charged that way in the Cisneros independent counsel investigation, what was then their principle witness, Linda Medlar.

[GRETA] VAN SUSTEREN: But does it really have any bearing on the Ken Starr investigation as it relates to the president since my understanding...is that Linda Tripp was basically the gun to the head of Monica Lewinsky to cooperate.  That happened.  Now, Linda Tripp may have her own independent criminal problems that she doctored it, but isn't it irrelevant to the president's legal issues.

LUSKIN: I mean, I think you are right, Greta.  It is largely irrelevant.  It doesn't appear to me that Linda Tripp has ever had any personal knowledge about any of the matters that are truly at issue here.  It may be relevant insofar as some of the things that may have been said to her or through her are relevant to these allegations of obstruction of justice because she does play a role in those allegations.

(3) “Burden of Proof,” CNN Nov. 18, 1998.
VAN SUSTEREN: Bob, how do you prepare?  I mean, what does counsel for the president do to prepare, tonight, for a cross-examination of Ken Starr?

LUSKIN: Well, I mean, the first thing you do whenever you prepare a cross-examination is try and figure out what you can accomplish, particularly given the time constraints.  So, my assumption is that in 30 minutes what you can try and do, or at least if you have time, what you try to do in a cross-examination of Starr and his Report, first is to try and show that he relied completely on witnesses whose credibility should have been questioned if one were being impartial.

VAN SUSTEREN: Meaning who?

LUSKIN: Meaning -- let's start with Monica Lewinsky.  I mean, this is woman who came to this investigation having admitted that she was a perjurer, but it's clear that in every point where her testimony conflicts with that of others, Ken Starr accepted her testimony as credible. The second thing I think that you would try and accomplish is to show that the report ignored or buried directly exculpatory information, like the testimony of Betty Currie and Vernon Jordan. And I think the third thing that you would try and accomplish is to show that the more serious charges, the charges of obstruction, are really not supported by any evidence and that the allegations, really, the evidence, is really wholly circumstantial in nature.

(4) “Burden of Proof,” CNN Jan. 28, 1998.
(5) “Burden of Proof,” CNN Feb. 11, 1998.
(6) ”The Big Show,” MSNBC Feb. 16, 1998.
(7) ”The Big Show,” MSNBC Mar. 10, 1998.
(8) “The World Today,” CNN May 26, 1998.
(9) “Burden of Proof,” CNN Jun. 29, 1998.
(10) ”The Big Show,” MSNBC Jul. 1, 1998.
(11) “InterNight,” MSNBC Aug. 4, 1998.
(12) “InterNight,” MSNBC Sep. 7, 1998.

Return to the index of this report.

Organized Labor Accountability Project