David Gregory Held Hostage, Day II

Has anyone heard from David Gregory, following the Libby verdict?

Ari Fleischer testified that he had leaked to John Dickerson and David Gregory during the Presidential trip to Africa on July 11, 2003.  John Dickerson has denied this; when the story broke, Imus listeners were assured that all would be revealed after the trial.

So - has Gregory stepped forward to announce that Tim "The Franchise" Russert may have, hmm, misremembered when he said that no one at NBC News knew about the leak?  That is not going to happen, unless Gregory has a job offer in hand.

Or has he stepped forward to announce that Fleischer, a key prosecution witness, had memory problems, and the leak never happened? Bummer for Fitzgerald, putting up a shaky witness like that - oh, wait, the verdict is in!

Well, we are waiting with bated breath, but we can't hold it forever (and I'll never turn Blue).

My Bold Prediction - Gregory will say it was a long trip, he was hopped up or grogged out on Sudafed and Ambien, and he just doesn't know.  I also predict skepticism will greet his pronouncement.

Russert's testimony from the fdl liveblog: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

From 3:

W [Wells]: Was it the expected practice that if a key reporter got important information, they would report it to the group?

T [Tim Russert]; Yes.

W: And Gregory and Mitchell were key reporters?

T: Yes, and they never came forward.

Comments

[Sue]

I know. Let's get Tony Snow to grill David Gregory during the press briefings. It would make for fun tv and a super chance for Snow to get a couple of digs in against Gregory.

[hit and run]

Let's get Tony Snow to grill David Gregory

I love Gregory.

Gregory tastes just like chicken.

Bwok Bwok

[stevesh]

"Don't you point that skewer at me!"

[TexasIsHeaven]

David Gregory is a pretensious ass with absolutely nothing to be pretensious about - except in his own imagination.

Don't hold your breath waiting on the weasel to say anything - it will never happen.

[sylvia]

Okay I just reread the indictment for the 1000th time and answered my own question. For Count 5 perjury, it says basically whether to judge whether "the underlined portions are false', so all those statements about Libby not knowing Wilson was married, etc, go against him, even though they are not parts of the actual charge that Libby confirmed Plame to Cooper. Knowing that now, I think there is no chance for getting out of Count 5 for Libby.

As to Count 4 perjury for Russert, his only chance is to get a memory expert to convince the jurors he was absent-minded at that time. I am not sure how discrediting Russert will have much impact as the jurors only have to judge one statement out of a charge as untrue. However, perhaps the appeals lawyer can make a case that having Libby proven as truthful for part of the charge, ie the conversation with Russert, would bolster his credibility to the other part of the charge about remembering. To allow untruthful testimony from Russert to stand would unfairly prejudice the jury to that charge. Same pretty much for Count 3. But I'm not an appeals lawyer, so I'm am just trying to educated guess here.

[Jeff]

Why on earth did the defense not call Gregory and Dickerson? Dickerson presumably because he would have blown the defense's suggestion that Libby was not a source for Cooper.

But Gregory? Because they suspected he would tell them that he didn't know and didn't tell Russert? (By the way, the timing is almost certainly off, since it would be quite difficult to fit together the Russert-Gregory communication, the Russert-Libby communication and the Libby-Rove communication.)

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Why on earth did the defense not call Gregory and Dickerson?'

I wondered that too. At least Dickerson who was on record as having denied being told.

Gregory? Well, they didn't know what he'd say, which is a no-no for any lawyer. And, he's so obviously biased against the Administration, they had to suspect he'd be unhelpful.

[Javani]

There is about as much chance of David Gregory talking as there is Joshua Marshall coming clean about who arranged his contacts in the United States with French DGSE asset Rocco Martino.

[longtimelistener]

"hi, NBC? Do you have David Gregory in the can?"

I've got no punchline, but I'll probably get disconnected before one is necessary

[Lycurgus]

I assume the defens didn't call Gregory because Walton ruled pre-trial that Gregory's testimony would be inadmissible as collateral impeachment of Fleischman. As for rebutting Russert, I suspect that the defense knew that Gregory would either claim a privilege to avoid contradicting Russert, or would actually support Russert's testimony by saying (whether true or not) that he did not pass on any Plame leak info to Russert.

[bad]

Gregory is waiting for his hair to become more important before he tells his story.

[Tom Maguire]

Why on earth did the defense not call Gregory and Dickerson?

For Dickerson, the defense managed the stipulation that he disputed Ari's version.

As for Gregory - leaving him in limbo was a double-play - for pure logicians (i.e., not these jurors) "Gregory Unheard" puts a cloud of doubt over both Russert and Fleischer. Once Gregory opens his mouth, it is like a see-saw - one goes down and the other goes up.

The better question is, why in the world did our truth-seeking prosecutor not pursue Gregory - surely he would want to erase the possibility that Russert was confused/lying.

As if.

[Pofarmer]

As for Gregory - leaving him in limbo was a double-play - for pure logicians (i.e., not these jurors) "Gregory Unheard" puts a cloud of doubt over both Russert and Fleischer.

Yeah, but did the jury realise the conflict here? Would it have mattered? Somehow, I doubt it. DC Justice.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

From the uninformed peanut gallery -- my son. He just came in asking me rather rudely, "So Miss Libby Expert, where's that weasel A$$hole Gregory hiding out?" I asked him why he asked me that and he said Imus was wanting to know.

[Patton]

I find it troubling that once Fitz found out that Russert had in the past claimed he never said something in a conversation and then it was proven that Russert was either lying his ass off or was suffering from worse memory lapses then Libby.

How does a prosecutor in good conscience use such testimony without any cooboration to convict someone.

It is just as possible that next week Russert will come across some notes and announce, WHY I ACTUALLY DID TELL LIBBY AND FORGOT, JUST LIKE LAST TIME.

[Patton]

In addition, Russert was flippant on the stand to make pronouncement that were easily disprovable leads me to believe the jury wasn't even listening.

Russerts claim that he didn't know lawyers couldn't go in the GJ, is much more implausable then Libby's testimony.

[Tom Maguire]

Well, Fitzgerald didn't probe the Gregory story, and he didn't explore the possibility that a news-clipper at NBC plucked the Novak column from the wires on the 11th and put them on Russert's desk.

Our very own don't ask-don't tell prosecutor.

Of course, he didn't check the phone records that dated the Martin-Harlow call to June 11; if there are Russert-Libby phone records, what do they say as to timing?

By the way, the timing is almost certainly off, since it would be quite difficult to fit together the Russert-Gregory communication, the Russert-Libby communication and the Libby-Rove communication.

I think that is more on-point for the "off the wire" Novak column idea, but manageable.

But Fleischer-Gregory would have been early morning in Washington - plenty of time for Gregory-Russert, Russert-Libby, Libby-Rove by lunchtime.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

CNN Reporter: Artificial Iraq Deadline 'Serves Only America's Enemies'

LOL. Did someone say something about marginalizing the WH/OVP. Sounds like only our trolls addicted to MSNBC are going to get marginalized.

[reliapundit]

if there are any good lawyers out there... can one answer me this:

how can someone obstruct an investigation into a crime which never happened?

since fitz ALREADY knew that (a) armitage was the leaker, and (b) no law was violated by the leak, then how can anything anyone does be obstruction?

[clarice feldman]

Day V

[battery]

We have seen how he treats other senators who do not tow his line and we know what 3he thinks of the plebes and serfs who only exist to supply the lucre he needs to fund his fantasies. He deserves to be defeated in the next primary.

[sophy]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some habbo gold .

[Archlord money]

And then you will looking for Archlord money,