Tim Russert Thread

We are waiting for Tim Russert to take center stage at the Libby trial.

I did a long preview last week, but here is an additional two cents:  Russert can lose this case for Fitzgerald but he can't win it.  Why?  Part of the excitement about Russert's appearance is that Russert's previous testimony *MAY* have been deliberately ambiguous.  From the NBC press release:

Mr. Russert told the Special Prosecutor that, at the time of that conversation, he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby. Mr. Russert said that he first learned Ms. Plame's name and her role at the CIA when he read a column written by Robert Novak later that month.

Obviously, Mr. Russert could have *HYPOTHETICALLY* said to Libby "All the reporters know that Wilson's wife is at the CIA and sent him on this trip" without being aware of her name or that she was an "operative".

If Russert rocks the court with the news that, although he did not discuss Valerie Plame with Libby he may have said something about Joe Wilson's wife, well, Special Counsel Fitzgerald may be laughed out of the courtroom and jurors will be left wondering about the credibility of other journalists, specifically Matt Cooper and Judy Miller.

HOWEVER!  Whether Russert told Libby about Ms. Plame on July 10/11 or not, that can't explain how Libby discussed her with Ari Fleischer on July 7 and with Judy Miller on July 8.  So even if Russert does not torpedo Fitzgerald, his testimony won't change the basic conundrum facing the jury - with or without Russert it is already clear that either some parts of Libby's story defy conventional space-time or that Libby and/or other witnesses are confused. 

Consequently, the jury must decide whether this is a case of honest confusion all around, or that Libby deliberately invented this story to throw investigators off the trail (of what, the defense will ask?  Fitzgerald is straining to come up with a motive since it is far from obvious that "the truth" would have put Libby in any legal jeopardy).

So however credible Russert may be, he can't resolve the question of whether Fleischer is confused, Miller is making stuff up, or Libby has conflated a chat with Russert on July 10 with some other talk with some other person who mentioned Wilson's wife on, for example, July 6.  That is a puzzle the jury will have to sort through, subject to reasonable doubt.

DEUS EX MACHINA:  Suppose Libby can produce a surprise witness who says, essentially, he called Libby at home on Sunday July 6 (missing the White House phone logs), asked him about Joe Wilson's appearance on Russert's show - Russert, Russert, RUSSERT! - and mentioned to Libby that Andrea Mitchell was embarrassing herself with a kid glove interview of Joe Wilson since all the reporters knew his wife was with the CIA.

Does that help Libby walk?  Some of the charges include that Libby did not specifically cite his tips to Miller and Cooper as reporter gossip, so those charges would still be in play. 

And can the Libby team surprise us that way?  I ask because two names on the list of *POSSIBLE* witnesses have no obvious connection to the case, and I am wondering whether Fitzgerald would have had a chance to depose them or review their depositions, or whatever.

Look, this is far-fetched, but I'd rather kick it around now than be surprised later.

MORE:  Our guy Jeff has thoughts at The American Prospect.  I feel obliged to rise to this bait:

However, there is no question that if Russert were to get up on the stand and admit that he did indeed tell Libby, it would be damaging for the prosecution. That has long been a fantasy of some right-wing observers of the case. Nothing would please them better than to discover that the MSM did it, and lied about it.

Nothing would please me better?  C'mon, world peace, a world free from disease, even the Yankees back in the Series where they belong would all put a bigger smile on my face.  However, a Russert meltdown would absolutely make my day and prolong my insufferability by several more.

Comments

[Fitzmas]

Fitz!

The Libby trial is the end of the beginning. There has been enough testimony and posturing by counsel allowing informed and objective observers to understand that this investigation is ongoing with Libby being only the first leg of a long and painful journey for our country.

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com

[Actually, I think this trial represent the beginning of a short and painful journey back to reality by some of our friends on the left.]

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

--------quote---------
F: In late September or October, did you bring it to VP's attention?

L: Went to him and said I didn't talk to Novak, added I learned about it from Tim Russert. He tilted his head a bit. I may have said that I talked to other reporters.

F: You're not sure?

L: I don't recall. What was important was telling him I did not leak to Novak, and I heard it from Russert, who said all reporters knew it.
---------endquote---------

Bye, bye to the Russert perjury charge, if either Rove or Cheney support Libby having mentioned Russert to them.

[Martin]

Well Libby testified in the grand jury that he told Cheney he learned it from Russert (no word whether Cheney responded 'I told you that on June 12, dumbass'). So Libby's pretty invested in his little Russert tale. And that was played to the jury this morning.

[Pete]

Keep hope alive.

Russert can lose the case for Libby.

[clarice]

Why has Fitz filed a motion to prevent Libby from getting information about his accommodation with Russert for his testimony (esp who was in the room when they took his deposition)? Why has Fitz filed a motion to preclude Mitchell's testimony and to prevent Libby from introducing her "everybody knew" tale?

[pete]

"If Russert rocks the court with the news that, although he did not discuss Valerie Plame with Libby he may have said something about Joe Wilson's wife,"

If fairies intercede in Iraq BushCo will be vindicated.

[12th Harmonic]

I don't get your logic. Presumably, Fitz knows what Russert's testimony will be before he calls him as a witness. It isn't credible that a prosecuter as experienced as Fitz would risk a case on a witness that might testify in a surprising way.

OTOH, if Russert were a witness for the defense, your theory might be plausible.

[Martin]

Really Sullivan?-well you can count out Rove-unless trashing the guy who you need to save your ass in your opening statement is the new brilliant.

And Cheney's even worse-so Fitz asks Cheney -did you correct Libby that you already told him that or did you forget too?

That's just one reason Cheney is no way taking the stand.

[obsessed]

Reading JustOneMinute is like watching The Sopranos ... crooks and killers as protagonists.

[Another Bob]

12thH: So far, Fitz has had several witnesses that it's fair to say testified in surprising ways. Fitz has also shown an aversion to the "whole" truth.

[JM Hanes]

12th Harmonic:

"I don't get your logic."

Call it one of the joys of cross-examination.

[clarice]

Libby never trashed Rove. As I suspected youhave problem with comprehension.

Why is the prosecution attempting to foreclose the defense from raising the fact that it never subpoenaed Mitchell who said "everone knew" or Gregory and Dickerson who Ari says he told?
Doesn't if interfere with Libby's right to a fair hearing if he is precluded from demonstrating that the prosecution obstructed its own investigation?

[Another Bob]

"trashed Rove"

I'm also fairly sure that, absent something that puts Rove in legal jeopardy, Rove does not give one damn what Libby's people say about him.

[Fitzmas]

Correct Clarice, Ted Wells was the one who threw Karl under the bus.

[maryrose]

Fitz wants what he wants when he wants it. He'd preclude everything about Mitchell Gregory et al if he could. But he can't -ergo the motions.

[pete]

"Reading JustOneMinute is like watching The Sopranos ... crooks and killers as protagonists."

It's more like an avoidance-of-reality-based show.

[lida rose]

"Why is the prosecution attempting to foreclose the defense from raising the fact that it never subpoenaed Mitchell who said "everone knew" or Gregory and Dickerson who Ari says he told?
Doesn't if interfere with Libby's right to a fair hearing if he is precluded from demonstrating that the prosecution obstructed its own investigation?
Posted by: clarice"

Are Gregory and Mitchell on the defense witness list?

And when you say "forclose," do you mean in some Fitzgerald court filing?

[centralcal]

Clarice, forgive me once again as an outsider to legal ins and outs ...

But don't Fitz's filings suggest a weakness in his presentation, and no small amount of worry too?

[Martin]

Not quite Another Bob- haven't heard another word about Rove from Libby's peops since the opening statement have you? Somebody nipped that defense right in the bud.

[steve]

Clarice-
Aren't you the lawyer?
What does Mitchell's 'everybody knew' have to do with Libby's alleged perjury/false staements/OOJ?

IANAL, so can you tell me what relevance it has? Even if everybody else knew, even if you and I knew, it still doesn't explain the contradiction between Russert's he said and Libby's he said, does it?

Or Ari's testimony that Libby told him 3 days before Libby Madonna'd it, and learned it as if for the very first time...

Let's assume EVERYBODY else in America knew. Don't we still have Libby saying one thing and a bunch of people saying the opposite?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Really Sullivan?'

Modus ponens, Martin. If...then.

You can look it up.

[Dan S]

*repeats over and over... "do not feed the trolls, do not feed the trolls, do not feed the trolls"*

[Ranger]

Do you think maybe Fitz suddenly realized that Mitchell covered State, where Armitage works, and maybe they talked about something between June 11th and July 10th? And then maybe Mitchell had a converstation with Russert, or with Libby or with both?

[roanoke]

Russert has arrived at the courthouse-on crutches-

What does that potend?

Link to photo

Also some FDLers are worried that in emails supposedly produced last minute by the White House(some 250 pages worth) there is confirmation in an email that Libby told Rove about the Russert "Plame works for CIA" phone call.

But that's FDLers and wouldn't Fitz have to know about the email and if Wells has something like that wouldn't he have to let Fitz know?

[clarice]

No, Fitzmas, but again you demonstrate a complete inability to understand anything more complicated than a cartoon.
Wells said that Libby feared that the WH was defending Rove and scapegoating him. And so far--in the prosecution's case--we have the fact that Rove confirmed Plame to Novak(not Libby), that nevertheless McClellan vouched for Rove, not Libby; that Libby had sought and received from the VP a note indicating he would not allow Libby who'd been tasked with rebutting Wilson's lies (see York today for about them) to be scapegoated to protect Rove.

Nothing in any of this constitutes a "trashing" of Rove, except in your playpen.

[Sue]

Dan,

Why not? The trolls are hungry. And while we await Little Russ, entertainment is in order. Bring in the court jesters. ::grin::

[Ranger]

Not quite Another Bob- haven't heard another word about Rove from Libby's peops since the opening statement have you? Somebody nipped that defense right in the bud.

Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 09:35 AM

Well, Martin, maybe that's because it's been the prosecution's turn to present. But it's been going so badly for Fitz, I can understand why you might think it's been the defense's turn.

[LOL]

[JM Hanes]

Clarice:

I thought Fitzgerald was the one trying to put Fleissner on the stand. Maybe he got cold feet and is trying either to accomplish the same thing through a motion, or preclude TeamLibby from impeaching his witness in advance?

I wasn't aware that Fitz had moved to preclude Mitchell. Can you point me in the right direction? [Fodder for hilarity, I know].

I'm not sure I wasn't mistaken in my impression that Fitz wanted Fleissner to testify about deals w. journalist. His latest motion seems to be directed at salvaging Bond's testimony (not having included Tate/Libby dermurrers about faulty memory, document review etc.). Sounded like he doesn't want any retired FBI types telling jurors this was unusual or irregular.

[cboldt]

-- don't Fitz's filings suggest a weakness in his presentation, and no small amount of worry too? --

Those qualities can be imputed to filings by either side in a battle.

This case has been hard fought by both sides. One aspect that makes it unusual is the way in which "covert status" and "lying to investigators" are intertwined. The defense is best off making the outcome turn on "absence of leak of classified information."

[Jane]

Anyone else notice that the moonbats come out when things start looking bad for them? Or maybe they all just sleep til noon.

[steve]

Clarice:" or Gregory and Dickerson who Ari says he told?
Doesn't if interfere with Libby's right to a fair hearing if he is precluded from demonstrating that the prosecution obstructed its own investigation"

Isn't that what the rumored mystery witness will do- expalin why they didn't go after Gregory? I though I'd read somewhere that the reason they didn't go after him is that there's no crime- since Ari didn't learn about it "officially" there's no possible IIPA charge, and that DOJ procedures call for not subpoenaing "journalists" except as a last resort...

Or are you really suggesting that they subpoena somebody as part of an investigation, even if there's no underlying crime?

[Fitzmas]

OT - Clarice, your comments are so eye popping that you made the Ny Times Fitz/Scooter crossword puzzle!

Down
1. WH press corps stud
2. Graham legacy
4. Veggie brand
5. Mr. October
6. sex _____
8. wintery speech
10. fictional FBI agent
11. do with blanket
13. Menace's neighbor
15. comes after belch
17. F. Scott_____________
18. child's toy
19. Spiro Agnew
23. VP Spinzone
25. Mandatory RSVP
26. synonymous w/ liveblogging

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/2007/02/this-crossword-puzzle-is-too-easy.html

[clarice]

Steve, it is getting really hard to post..If Mitchell knew and Gregory knew (per Fleischer) the defense should be able to bring that out in cross of Russert.How reasonable is it to assume that two people who knew this never told him? Russert says he didn't tell Libby because until Novak's column he didn't know.
But Wilson was on MTP on July 6, interviewed by Mitchell and another colleague Matthews was megaphoning Wilson's lies.

[windansea]

LOL...our baby pixel seals think the case is over already and Wells is just going to throw up his hands and say "you win"

y'all might want to read Fitz's latest brief to see how worried he is about what's going to happen when Team Libby takes the mound

[Ranger]

Jane,

I am sure it is all part of a carefully crafted information plan. They got their marching orders this morning to hold fire until just before Russert takes the stand, then deluge the "enemy" with distracting posts to allow "their side" to craft the narrative during Russert's time on the stand.

[Martin]

Ranger-just who do you think the defense is going to call?

You're not still believing Cheney is going to testify do you?

[Dan S]

Russert has arrived at the courthouse-on crutches-

What does that potend?
Posted by: roanoke | February 07, 2007 at 09:38 AM

Lame testimony?

[pete]

Martin

"But it's been going so badly for Fitz, I can understand why you might think it's been the defense's turn."

Cheney says the prosecution is in it's "last throes".

[Rick Ballard]

"Russert has arrived at the courthouse-on crutches-

What does that potend?"

You want I should Vinnie over to splain?

Chi parla non sa, chi sa non parla.

[JM Hanes]

Summary of Fitgerald's Document 271:

Summer is the season
When kids, for no reason,
Slam till they almost splinter
Doors they leave open all winter.

[clarice]

JMHanes, Sunny Day has redone the latest filings in html form and gave the cites on the Libby Filing thread

[roanoke]

Dan S.-

Lame testimony!

Ha perfect comeback-I thought I had something better-but no that's just too good-LOL!

steve,

In Libby's Grand Jury testimony Libby quotes Russert as saying "everybody knew." Russert ends up sounding like Andrea Mitchell who works for Russert and it shows a chain of possession as to who Russert likely heard it from.

Funny how everyone is sounding like Andrea Mitchell, Colin Powell, Russert, Libby.

"Everyone knew it". Everybody is coming up with that quote and it might be because virtually everyone did-except for-

Matt Cooper. He had to google it.

[centralcal]

From TVNewser:

Bill Hemmer on FNC, 12:15pm:

"This is not usually how Tim Russert is seen on television. The host of Meet the Press at NBC on Sunday morning arriving moments ago at the U.S. District Court in Washington...

Russert is on crutches. Not quite sure why that's the case..."

> Update: 12:48am: WP on Nov. 17: "Russert broke his right ankle Tuesday night while playing with his mutt, Buster the Wonder Dog. Buster and his owner were chasing each other on a stairwell inside the house when the 'Meet the Press' host -- carrying research papers and dry cleaning -- tripped and fell..." Ten weeks later, and he's still in a cast?

[Jane]

Anyone else having posting problems?

[Florence Schmieg]

The trolls are here because it is lunchtime at the trial. They seem like really mean, small people.

[Ranger]

Martin,

Why wouldn't Cheney testify? If he would be good for the prosecution, you can be sure that Fitz would have called him. As it is, it sounds like his directives to his staff were to stay focused on the facts, and don't get sidetracked by gossip. That can't hurt Libby.

[Jane]

Ranger,

Ugh. If they just weren't all so damn predictable. There is no entertainment value at all.

[clarice]

I was having problems posting Jane, but it seems to have resolved itself.

[centralcal]

Jane, yes I am having trouble too.

Tried three times to tell Dan S how excellent his "lame" remark was. lol.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Why has Fitz filed a motion to prevent Libby from getting information about his accommodation with Russert for his testimony (esp who was in the room when they took his deposition)? Why has Fitz filed a motion to preclude Mitchell's testimony and to prevent Libby from introducing her "everybody knew" tale?

Because he wants to win more than he wants libby to have a fair trial?