Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Fitzi's Dishonor | Main | Thanks For The Memories »

March 08, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d834eabb1053ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference David Gregory Held Hostage, Day II:

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,

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame