Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« I Love Coincidences | Main | NoKo Nuke Deal? »

February 13, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d834e34eaf53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Imus On Russert And Plame: "I Think He Knew":

Comments

Martin

This is easily resolved then.

Put Libby on the stand-let Libby call Russert the liar, not you and Imus, and let the jury evaluate their respective credibility. That is what they're there for, after all.

Other Tom

If Imus thinks so, good chance one or more jurors are feeling the same way.

Martin, we can't do that, old man--you seem to be forgetting the Rule Against Perpetuities. Get back to those law books, son.

Pofarmer

Quick, it's in the news. Let's get it into evidence!!!!

Martin

Please OtherTom-I know your type-broke down alcoholic lawyer with kids that don't call and a mean ugly wife.

Try to stay lucid until at least 11:00 a.m. EST please.

Sue

Can someone please explain to me why Mitchell's own statements are considered hearsay?

Martin

They are if used to impeach Russert Sue. With Mitchell-they're not hearsay. But the defense knows she has retracted her earlier statement-but wants to introduce it to impeach her, and thus get the statement into evidence this way.

Ask OtherTom for a ruling-he's got about 45 minutes left before he's shot for today.

jwest

Imus also brought up his doubts to Craig Crawford? an hour earlier on this morning’s show. It looks like he is going to hang on to this for awhile.

When Imus talked about his guest lineup for the morning – Crawford, Frank Rich and Dick Cavett, he said it looked like a Communist Party meeting.

Sue

EW is saying Mitchell won't testify. I can't tell from the little bit she posted between Wells and the Judge.

Sue

Ask OtherTom for a ruling-he's got about 45 minutes left before he's shot for today.

F*&^ off...I know what hearsay is freakoid.

clarice

Martin, Your comments to OT are unforgivable.

Tom Maguire

Geez, Martin, graceless under pressure here. C'mon, the defense was always slated to get a turn, and maybe even score a few points. Relax, they're all guilty, yes?

Sue

I will take my kudos...Abramson did exactly what I said she would...no story about Wilson or his wife ever brought to her attention. Poor swamp ladies. She didn't say a word about probation...

Charlie (Colorado)

Ask OtherTom for a ruling-he's got about 45 minutes left before he's shot for today.

Martin, on the off chance Typepad has finally cleaned things up, I would like to take this opportunity to mention that you're a dick.

Other Tom

Like Joe Wilson, I'm really pissed--Martin left out the "filthy rich" part.

biomom

Again, the horrible left!! I don't care how old they are, they are adolescents. Always the personal attacks. Disgusting.

Sue

Clarice,

Are you getting that the judge isn't going to allow Mitchell's testimony at all?

clarice

No Mitchell:
"Walton mentions that Mitchell will be here at 1:30. She was going to testify without the jury, first, so Libby's team knows whether her testimony would be to see if they can admit it. Wells was explaining to him whether or not she was going to, but he was not by the mike and then walked away from the camera. Helpful, Ted. Think of the media room!!!

Walton It would be my view that the only probative value that her statement would have would be if jury could consider substantive evidence. Since it's my view that it can't be used for that purpose, in my view it does qualify as hearsay.

9:48

Wells I don't to reargue my point. But I'd like to call her to talk about how aggressively she was working on the story. Once I show the intensity with which she was covering the story, I would have the right to question her whether she heard a rumor, and then I'd have the right to impeach her. [Sure seems like he's rearguing the point–btw Ted has his humble personality on right now, speaking real low and rationally.]

Wells I'm willing to sit on the record as is. I do believe I would have the right to impeach her. I'm not calling her as a subterfuge. I will accept that the record is closed. I will release her. My appelate record is protected.

Walton The intensity of what she was doing in and of itself doesn't add to your defense.

Wells If you accept that the intensity of her work is relevant, then I submit that the statement is admissible.

Walton The intensity doesn't mean anything UNLESS you're arguing she may have heard it. The mere fact that intensity of investigation doesn't help your case. You've got to couple the two for it to have any value in your case. You may perceive it as having probative value. It has nil value.

Wells That's why I'm willing to rest on the record with that understanding. [Sounds like we won't see Mitchell, sorry Tom Maguire.]"

Sue

left out the "filthy rich" part

::grin::

Alan Rabinowitz

Martin:

I think you owe it to the community of posters here to tell them who's paying you and how much.

Its the least you can do. They have a right to know how much your integrity and self-respect cost.

Is it Tim Gill? One of the Soros entities that spring up from time to time? Or some other group?

Come on . . . its obvious you just drop in to cause trouble. If you actually read the threads you're comments would at least be substantive instead of personal insults.

So out with it -- how much do you cost? Who and how much?

Charlie (Colorado)

Its the least you can do. They have a right to know how much your integrity and self-respect cost.

Nothing at all, I'm sure.

Just what they are worth.

Charlie (Colorado)

Okay, lawyer types, I'm not grasping this: Walton told Wells he could call Mitchell yesterday, today there was further argument and now he can't?

How'd that happen.

Evelyn

Methinks Martin got hit in the ego. (Make that a big hit.) Hit home eh?

LOL OT on the part he left out. You've probably crippled him for at least 15 mins or so till he thinks of another comeback.

Patrick R. Sullivan

I was thinking yesterday, after both Woodward and Novak admitted it was possible they mentioned the wife to Libby, that they really didn't need Mitchell's testimony. They've already got reasonable doubt on the Russert stuff.

So, they're going to keep Mitchell as an insurance policy. If there is a conviction, they'll claim their right to confront the accusers was denied by keeping Andrea off the stand. It's the best of both worlds for the Defense.

Unfortunately it also probably means they won't call Joe Wilson or Kristoff either.

Jane

Is Jerylyn blogging? Is our only option one dimension?

Pete

Yeah let Libby take the stand. Will he?

sbw

Martin, let me help. Try this: "Oh, yeah! Sez you!"

Sue

Oh, good grief. Now you have the year of Iran identifying John Hannah. They are so childish over there.

Charlie (Colorado)

You know, Tom, I'd be really interested to know if Pete, Jeff, and klem are posting from the same IP.

sbw
One more note: in (dis)honor of John Hannah's bellicose statements of late, I will not follow my normal practice of referring to witnesses by their initials. Instead, I will refer to him as "The Year of Iran."

Cline up, C and The Year of Iran

Some people can be so small.

sbw

BTW, that's from FireDogLake.

Jane

gawd whoever is blogging at FDL today is very annoying. What's with the "Year of Iran" stuff? Is that what the dems are now wishing for?

Sue

sbw,

Small...childish...either one. It makes it very hard to read the comments. Maybe Hannah will be short.

Jane

Interesting commentary on Libby's memory.

PaulL

HatefulWheel is making her non-transcript difficult to read today. What a deranged woman.

Tom Maguire

[Sounds like we won't see Mitchell, sorry Tom Maguire.]"

No Mitchell no peace. Unless the defense introduces evidence that he is a child molester, The Decider can pardon Libby with my blessing, if we reach that point.

clarice

I think this is a wrong decision which guarantees reversal on appeal if it should come to that. It also probably means Gregory will be called by the defense.

Sue

LOL. Her own crowd turned on her. Hannah has now morphed into TYOI.

Jane

Does anyone get the "year of Iran" reference? And is anyone else blogging today?

nittypig

Keep hope alive. Maybe we'll see her on appeal!

Jane

From Instapundit:

HOWARD KURTZ: "That pffft you hear is the sound of the air going out of the Scooter Libby trial."

UPDATE: Imus on Russert and Plame: "I think he knew." Plus this: "Frank Rich knows little about this trial but he is a useful barometer for the conventional wisdom of the Bush-bashing left. And he opined that the Plame outing was an accident and an over- reaction, not any sort of a plan to specifically expose her."

clarice

Prof Kim is--- check the mba feed.

Hannah is describing how busy Libby was in this period of time and how important his work was.(I want to smack EW for this childish nonsense which detracts so from reading her otherwise fine summary of testimony)

Jane

Has anyone other than the folks at NBC said info came from Libby?

Can this be reframed as an NBC conspiracy against the WH?

hit and run

Tom - there were rumors and speculation floating about that you might make an appearance at the courthouse.

Oh, and something about you wearing a peasant dress or something?

clarice

Jane, no one at NBC said the info came from Libby. Libby said he forgot about "wife" until Russert mentioned it to him.

hit and run

Clarice:
I want to smack EW for this childish nonsense


Clarice, be careful, thoughts of a hot girl on girl chick fight might be enough to push me into adolescent mode......I'm trying to be good.

clarice

Maybe the defense backed off the Mitchell mock trial because E is here and confirms that his original notes confirm the summary--that Russert was more equivocal in his recollection about telling Libby. That's all the defense needs , after all.

clarice

Maybe the defense backed off the Mitchell mock trial because E is here and confirms that his original notes confirm the summary--that Russert was more equivocal in his recollection about telling Libby. That's all the defense needs , after all.

clarice

h & r, I want to make clear I was taking metaphorically, not physically.

Dan S

We definitely don't pay these guys enough. Aside from the stress, those are long days. Unlike the low-level crats who work four days a week (maybe) and 6 hour days.

Larry

H & R, every time she mentions Emma Peel tied to the railroad track, I have to go take a cold shower.

secarr

Walton is really going out on a limb to protect Russert from impeachment if he really isn't going to allow the defense to call Mitchell. Walton seems to not understand that the proper course is to allow the defense to call Mitchell and ask her if either she told Russert about Plame or if she knew that, in essence, "everyone knew" about Plame prior to the Novak article. The second that Mitchell denies this, THEN her October 3, 2003, statements can be used to impeach her AND Tim it-was-impossible-for-me-to-know Russert. The purp[ose of all of this is not to call Mitchell just to impeach her with her own statements, the purpose is to use Mitchell to impeach Russert--an entirely proper and accepted basis for calling a witness.

Of course, the blogger from FDL may be mistaken in her interpretation of what transpired between Walton and Wells this morning--she does have a tendency to hear what she wants to hear. I guess we'll know for sure this afternoon.

Christopher Fotos

Maybe the defense backed off the Mitchell mock trial because E is here and confirms that his original notes confirm the summary--that Russert was more equivocal in his recollection about telling Libby.

I wonder also whether Libby's team simply concluded they were not going to change Walton's mind at this point, and on the off chance Mitchell might be admitted through another route there was no advantage in giving her a practice interrogation absent the jury. (Another commenter or maybe TM mused about this freebie practice)

danking70

Well if Frank Rich is changing his tune, then it must be real obvious to the left where the Libby Trial Train is heading...

Is it possible for MSM approval ratings to hit single digits?

Martin

Cranky this morning? My jab was directed solely at OtherTom, who, you'll note fired first-(though it was an inside joke)-and who was the only one to respond in kind, i.e. with humor.

Jane

Clarice,

You are right of course, but even so, isn't the appearance of this sort of boiling down to NBC v the WH? Or am I seeing what floats my boat?

danking70

"Maybe the defense backed off the Mitchell mock trial because E is here and confirms that his original notes confirm the summary--that Russert was more equivocal in his recollection about telling Libby."

That would probably be enough to bring Mitchell in as well.

sbw

Martin: Cranky this morning?

Naw. It's built up of the detritus you've delivered for quite a long time.

Curly Smith

The ballad of Andrea Mitchell

85 days and what do you get
3 months older and branded a twit
Saint Fitz don't you call me 'cause I don't know
I sold my soul to the Peacock show

clarice

Look at it this way--
(a) He (E) confirms his summary was based on his notes of the conversation--the summary equivocation evidence is strengthened.
(b) He denies that the summary is accurate--then the false statements count based on the FBI notes and summaries are done for.
(c) He says he can't recall without his notes--doesn't that mandate the dropping of the Russert counts because of the prosecution's failure to secure properly important potentially exculpatory evidence?

I can't see anything that's not a win-win for Libby in this.

Carol Herman

CAROL HERMAN

I actually used to watch Larry King Live; but IMUS? Geez. And, here?

I think IMUS is "milking" this cash cow.

He's a pretty nasty piece of work, anyway. And, all he does is dislike people. Some get along with him better than others.

But I'll bet that Russert NEVER GOES BACK INTO THAT COKE-HEAD'S DEN, AGAIN. He no longer snorts coke? Who cares, not me.

Russert has MOTIVE to lie through his teeth!

FOlks, just remember Dan RaTHer. Another once of those inflated blow-hards, who tried to derail President Bush's re-election. And, when he won it anyway? Kerry went to sleep, instead of calling the President to concede. This whole group of partisan stinkers are forever pulling fast ones.

Russert lies because it pays him $5,000,000 a year. He surrounds himself with lackluster talent. So right off the bat, you know he only wants to hear from "yes-heads."

As to the NBC turkey? Let's see how they serve it up at Thanksgiving?

Thornburgh and his silly "report" was never able to "halp" Dan RaTHer. He actually got a lot of money postponing the inevitable. And, Mary Mapes? Mad as a mad-hatter at all the executive talent. So she spit out a book pretty publically. Who cares? I don't.

Semanticleo

"The Decider can pardon Libby with my blessing,"

Since there is no evidence Libby is a pedophile, it's a safe gambit.

But, then.....why all the sound and fury over Russert?

Oh, yeah. Journalists are held to a higher standard than elected and appointed public servants.

drjohn

If Rich thinks this is an over-reaction, then Russert lied.

If I had the chance to press Mitchell on the stand, I'd ask: "You said you were drunk when you made the statement that Plame's status was common knowledge.

Are you drunk now?

Were you drunk when you recanted?

Are you often drunk while on the radio, or only when making incriminating remarks?"

Sue

No wonder they can't keep Sunni and Shiite straight.

Damn. I hate it that they won't let my posts go through over there. Someone should tell EW that the person who couldn't tell the difference was a DEMOCRAT! Yuck, yuck, yuck...

Jane

Boy you can really tell the folks at FDL do not think this is going well for them.

I loved this remark: "No wonder they can't keep Sunni and Shiite straight".

Gee that was a democrat as I recall - the one that's in charge of intelligence.

Jane

Good show Curly!

Dan S

Jane,

A Democrat in charge of intelligence: the Demming down of America.

Sue

Totally off topic, but another 'daddy' is in the works for Anna Nicole Smith's baby. The bodyguard.

abad man

Martin,
Personal slights are one thing, but even you should realize bringing the family into it falls outside the bounds of polite discourse.
Try being a grown-up for a change and apologise.

Molon Labe

Russert's construction is that it would have been impossible for him to reveal Plame because he didn't know at the time of the Libby call.

All the defense has to do to dismantle that construction is show that is was indeed possible for him to know.

Mitchell's testimony would go directly to attacking Russert's construction.

I do not understand why she is not allowed to testify.

Les Nessman

"Oh, yeah. Journalists are held to a higher standard than elected and appointed public servants."

Which journalist is on trial here?

clarice

It is, Jane..Perhaps when this is over we can script a Comic opera version of this. (I tried my hand at it once and my editor and I gave up..Munchausen,Emma Peel, assorted media lowlifes, the VIPS, the very special prosecutor..it would be great.Soylent is off to basic training this week, though, and Curly's good, but no one can do it like Soylent.

highcotton

What I would like more than anything right now is access to Judge Walton's phone records from the close of court yesterday until the trial reopened this morning. One of the most powerful/connected/respected men in the world (Greenspan) had a wife going into meltdown, with good reason. Colin Powell, by coincidence also one of the most powerful/ connected/respected men in the world had his top aide and closest friend also in the greasy puddle state. By another of the odd coincidences so common in the Land of the Inbred, D.C., the two power couples are so tight that the Powells were among the handful of elite who attended the Greenspan/Mitchell wedding. Put together two icons faced with the public humiliation and possible legal jeopardy of those nearest and dearest to them, and I'll bet they came up with a few ideas to avoid that, don't you?

Overnight, a clear compromise that had been reached on Andrea's testimony suddenly went 'poof'. Despite no apparent changes in circumstances and no new arguments presented, the bench reversed itself. Fortuitous for a certain closeknit group of old friends, right?

Now, I'm not saying the judge tanked. But I believe the shenanigans in this trial have stripped millions of average Americans like me of their basic trust in 'the system'. We are beginning to think the unthinkable is just as likely as not.

Sue

Wow highcotton. The Powells attended the wedding of Greenspan and Mitchell? For real? Holy mackerel batman! That is who Mitchell is protecting!

Sue

Looks to me like the outing of super duper Val Plame lost us a very important player in dealing with Iran. Scooter Libby. Hmmm...new conspiracy theory coming up...

clarice

per fdl we have a stipulation which should undercut further Miller's testimony:
"
Jeffress read a stipulation. WINPAC is a center within CIA. The records of CIA show that Valerie Wilson did not work for nor was she detailed to WINPAC in 2003 or at any other time. "

Semanticleo

"Which journalist is on trial here?"

Uh, Libby is on trial for obstruction.

Clearly, your beloved host wants journalists
at the dock as payback. Or maybe he's just saying he wants to sanction the art of lying.

Everyone does it.

Pofarmer

the purpose is to use Mitchell to impeach Russert--an entirely proper and accepted basis for calling a witness.

Yep, more stones unturned. There's a veritable mountain of em at this point.

biomom

Sylvester Reyes. Democrat, head of congressional intelligence committee. I use the term lightly.

Another Bob

"Sylvester Reyes. Democrat"

I tried to drop that comment at FDL, but no joy.

TexasToast

You guys seem to think that impeaching Mitchell blows apart the prosecution's case.

How?

One must believe a chain of inferences a mile long.

1. Mitchell has inconsistent statements in the public record . Check.
2. Mitchell will testify, under oath, that she didn’t know about VP’s status. Check.
3. Mitchell will be impeached by her prior inconsistent statement. Check.

Now what?
It is a real leap from that impeachment to suggest that Russert knew or did not know. It invites the jury to assume an entire factual chain not in evidence and is therefore an invitation to jury nullification – I’m not at all surprised the judge isn’t going to allow it.

Seems like the defense has given up on the “mock trial” anyway.

TexasToast

You guys seem to think that impeaching Mitchell blows apart the prosecution's case.

How?

One must believe a chain of inferences a mile long.

1. Mitchell has inconsistent statements in the public record . Check.
2. Mitchell will testify, under oath, that she didn’t know about VP’s status. Check.
3. Mitchell will be impeached by her prior inconsistent statement. Check.

Now what?
It is a real leap from that impeachment to suggest that Russert knew or did not know. It invites the jury to assume an entire factual chain not in evidence and is therefore an invitation to jury nullification – I’m not at all surprised the judge isn’t going to allow it.

Seems like the defense has given up on the “mock trial” anyway.

Pofarmer

Or maybe he's just saying he wants to sanction the art of lying.

Talk to Cooper, he seems good at it.

clarice

As far as I can tell, the only other place anyone said Plame worked at WINPAC (besides Miller) is stuff like the Vanity Fair article where the source was WILSON.
The note of the conversation with Cheney shows Libby was not told "Winpac"; Russert's wife, a Vanity Fair editor might have heard that, too.

But wherever Miller got WINPAC from, it is not likely that it was Libby, noe Armitage (nor anyone whose source was Armtage.

Sue

It is a real leap from that impeachment to suggest that Russert knew or did not know.

Did Russert look good in tights, while he was leaping? Because if you will go look at his testimony he clearly stated that if Mitchell and/or Gregory knew, they would have told him.

Pofarmer

Except, if 2 changes, and we already have Russert saying that Mitchell would have told him if she knew, and we already know there were rumors swirling around...........

Appalled Moderate

Toast:

Glad you posted that twice, because TM and others needs to see that twice.

if you want an easier train of inference, call Gregory. Based on the prosecution's own witness, we know he had heard about Val.

I think some have trouble distinguishing between what might be a good idea in a trial from stuff it would be cool to know.

Terl1016

Rich's comments are interesting, in that they still try to indict the WH for SOMETHING nefarious. But how convenient that now that the press is twisting in the wind on this one, Rich thinks it was all a mistake. Before that it was a constitutional crisis or something like that. NBC needs to clean itself out.

fdcol63

Clarice,

Valerie "Wilson" may not appear as an employee of WINPAC ... but I wonder if Valerie "Plame" appears on their employee list?

SaveFarris

It is a real leap from that impeachment to suggest that Russert knew or did not know.

Not really. The Mitchell statement from 2003 is proof that she knew. (Not indisputable proof, mind you, but reasonable doubt-sized proof.) Now, if one of Russert's top-level reporters knew, how "impossible" is it for Russert to know?

epphan

I, for one, have no trouble distinguishing between what might be a good idea in a trial from stuff it would be cool to know...I firmly come down on the side of the things that would be cool to know. A lot of people call that the truth.

bethl

How did the Washington Post know by last night at least that Andrea would not testify--when the judge reversed himself this am?

aIaq

Sylvester Reyes. Congressional gold medal for Spain. Wilson's diplomat(CIA) dad and Madrid after Plame's 'Vanity Fair' Iraq.

Larry Johnson confirmed that Plame worked Iran just before the Iran desk was announced(high threat country like N Korea). She was involved in Iraq, so most thought he was trying to warn politicians she might have a problem there too, like the Iraq assassinations of the operations officers.
He aslo confirmed her training back to the farm with Jim Warcoski(sp) where they all 'fired guns(paramilitary trained).'

Armitage was the general in the time gate show. Abrams, Abram, Abram----

The 'Vanity Fair' head guy was replaced after the Iraq assasinations-MI things or something.

FDL things?

Ralph L.

TM's scenario above, which I find plausible, must change the theory about Russert's mood at the time of the indictment. It wasn't partisan jubilation (solely), but giddiness from fear.

clarice

Yesterday we had a discussion about the Miller (terrorist raid) phone records. A very good legal writer, Gabriel Schoenfeld, discusses that in a piece on the effort to get a shield law:
"Given this breach of closely held information, Fitzgerald, acting in his capacity as U.S. attorney in Chicago, opened an investigation. Among other things, he issued a subpoena for the telephone records of the two Times reporters during the period in which the leak was thought to have occurred. The Times strenuously resisted, and for the last four or five years the matter has slowly moved through the courts. This past August, a three-judge federal panel ruled against the Times. “We see no danger to a free press” in so ruling, wrote one of the panel’s members. “Learning of imminent law-enforcement-asset freezes/searches and informing targets of them is not an activity essential, or even common, to journalism.” In December, the Supreme Court, declining to hear an appeal, let stand the decision of the three-judge panel.

The Times, for its part, has steadfastly insisted that no damage was done by its reporters’ actions. According to an attorney for the paper, the pair were merely “conducting their journalistic duties by getting reaction to an ongoing story.” The Times editorial page has blasted the Supreme Court’s December action as “the latest legal blow to the diminishing right of journalists to shield informants.” Citing the public interest in the “dissemination of information,” it has seized the occasion to argue yet again that the “privilege granted to journalists to protect their sources needs to be bolstered with a strong federal shield law.”

But the Times is wrong. For here is an instance, one of many in the recent past, where it is hardly clear that the public interest resides in promoting the “dissemination of information.” To the contrary, where protecting the country from terrorism is at stake, the public interest may rather reside in narrowing access to information, and not in broadcasting it to terrorist fundraisers and to the public at large. Although the two reporters have not been charged with any crime, and although there is no evidence that either of them acted with malicious intent, a convincing argument can be made that in ferreting out secret information from a grand jury, and in placing telephone calls to criminal suspects on that basis, they endangered us all.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10827&page=all>No shield
_____________

centralcal

OT: TVNewser has a piece that CNN may be trying to coax Olbermann to leave NBC (his contract is up this year).

During dull parts of today's proceedings, I am sure the comics among us can find ways to amuse us with what this might mean for CNN.

feedup

What a waste of tax dollars.......................

Martin

No Gregory, no competency.

feedup

What a waste of tax dollars.......................

sbw

Now, if I understand correctly, the key to reading FireDogLake liveblogging by EmptyWheel is to ignore the catty, shallow, ill-informed, broad-brush comments in the square brackets.

Sn.

Negroponte just got confirmed. Peace Corps has new graphics(look them up, it's cool) for active countries like Fiji.

Typicial of CNN, PC and CIA.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame