Howard Kurtz, Covering For Russert

Howard Kurtz goes into the tank for Tim Russert with this trial coverage:

A Case of Bad Ink: Portrait of Media Is Not So Flattering

...The one plus for the media in Libby's conviction involved Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief, since the case turned on his credibility. The Libby defense was built around his contention that he learned about CIA operative Valerie Plame from Russert and, therefore, believed it was widely known, but the "Meet the Press" host insisted that it never came up in their conversation. The jury believed Russert.

Actually, it is  not clear just what the jury believed - from this TIME account, the jury seemed to believe that Libby had heard about Ms. Plame from so many government officials that he could not have been surprised to hear about Plame from Russert, whether Russert told him or not; that is quite different from saying they believed Russert's story in toto.

And does Mr. Kurtz care to pick at Russert's story at all?  Has he, or anyone, heard from David Gregory, who may or may not have received a leak from Ari Fleischer on the morning of July 11?  Gregory would certainly have had time to pass that tip back to Russert or one of his colleagues in New York.

Or has Mr. Kurtz explored the mystery of Russert's undated memory?  Russert claims he learned about Ms. Plame from the Novak column, but he does not claim that he specifically remembers reading that column when it hit the regular papers on Monday, July 14.

Since the Novak column went out on the news wires on the morning of July 11, perhaps an alert NBC producer stuck it into Russert's pile of reading material on the 11th.  Does anyone know?  Does Tim Russert know?  Does anyone intend to ask him whether NBC has producers who keep tabs on the news wires (Gee, bets, anyone?)

Mr. Kurtz is not even attempting to probe these issues - we will see how long Tim Russert and NBC News can prop up this non-disclosure.

MORE:  I want to hear David Gregory's story, but we have not forgotten Andrea Mitchell.  Oh, no.

UPDATE:  This transcript of Denis Collins first press appearance sheds some light:

QUESTION: Could you tell us how you drew the conclusion that it was a deliberate lie versus an innocent mistake?

COLLINS: The primary thing that convinced us on -- most of the counts was the conversation -- alleged conversation with Russert. It was either false, which some of us believe it never happened. Or if it did happen, Mr. Libby saying that he was surprised to hear about Mrs. Wilson -- we had about 34 Post-It pages. By Post-It, I don't mean the little ones you stick on; they were like 2.5 feet by 2 feet. And they were filled with all the information that we distilled from the testimony. We took a long time to do that. We took about a week just to get all these little building blocks there.

And what we came up with was that Mr. Libby either was told by or told to people about Mrs. Wilson at least nine times, and in a period of time that it would be extremely -- I mean, we were told he had a bad memory and we actually believed he did.

...

QUESTION: What about Tim Russert? How credible a witness was he?

COLLINS: Well, I thought he was very credible. I think most people thought he was very credible. But it's a funny thing when -- you know, there were a few people who thought, No, he probably had that conversation. So, for purposes of arguing that point, we spent -- I don't know -- a day and a half, assuming it was true. At one point, I raised an objection or something about, you know, No, I can't go with that because of X. And somebody in the jury said, Wait a minute; you said you don't believe they had the conversation. So you know, you do get, kind of, caught up in making arguments for or against something just to help the process along.

OK, so some believed the Russert conversation to be pure invention, but no one bought the "I Was Surprised" part of it.  That is actually the sensible way to tackle those counts, since the issues were combined - solve the easy one, let the hard one slide.

Comments

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

What was the date of the crime?

And, how was Libby able to defend himself, if the judge denied his counsel an opportunity to impeach Russert? Since when do the attorneys for NBC run court rooms? Is that why waltoon's court is a CRIMINAL ONE? Because of what NBC could do?

You think the truth won't come out?

How much string did the jurors use to tie this trap together?

Sure. They wanted to see Cheney. And, even the PResident. They really had thoughts of grandure, huh? The "little people talking to power."

Well, when you figure out what the juror's instructions looked like. And, how the miscarriage of justice took place, as you unravel this thing. You'll see the C-STUDENT himself, the junior shrub, not growing much while in office.

We pay a price for these dynasties, ya know?

And, this time? We have a man who can't even give a coherent speech! You think this whole charade would have gotten this far if there was a modicum of talent within the prez? Nah. I didn't think so. He's cut from the same cloth as Gerald Ford. IN the job because he seemed to be at the right place at the right time. But not a stellar performer.

As to Libby? His mistake was in taking the job at the White House, and then working so hard.

But he's not alone. Martha Stewart took this same walk before him. Of course, his law license just flew the coop.

And, Fitz has had his revenge. But it wasn't worth it.

Oh, while you're at it. I'm serious. On what date did the crime occur. You're wearing a watch? At what TIME on that date did this crime take place.

Answer that and there are bank robbers looking for you. To be their lookout. While they rob banks and you can't find your putz.

[Chutzpah]

Let's count all the lies in the Washington Post!

Oh, wait; we haven't all day. All right, let's just count the lies in one story reporting on I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's conviction today in federal court of four out of five charges brought against him by special persecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Besides the smarmy inuendo, there are three clear and obvious falsehoods, starting with this one:

Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, was sent by the CIA on a mission to Niger in 2002 to assess reports that Iraq had sought to buy nuclear materials there. He concluded the reports were false.

Not according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, he didn't.

To begin with, here are the famous (infamous?) "sixteen words" that President Bush used in his 2003 State of the Union speech, delivered on January 28th, 2003:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

...Just so we know what Lyin' Joe Wilson later claimed to have refuted. But when Wilson was debriefed by his CIA handlers, he actually affirmed Bush's claim -- which was that Iraq had sought -- tried to obtain -- Uranium from Africa (not that we claimed Hussein had actually gotten his mits on any). In the Senate Intelligence Committee report cited above, we read this:

The intelligence report based on the former ambassador’s [Wilson's] trip was disseminated on March 8,2002....

The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki... said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted by Senate committee]-businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.

(Page 43 of the document, page 8 of the pdf linked above.)

Remember, this is from the intelligence report by Joe Wilson's CIA handlers, based upon Wilson's oral debriefing of what he found in Niger.

This is very strong evidence that Iraq was, in fact, seeking Uranium from Africa... and Bush was absolutely right; and Wilson is totally wrong when he says today that he found nothing to back up the "sixteen words".

Wilson lied, and now the Washington Post has knowingly perpetuated that lie in order to boost Ambassador Wilson and damage President Bush.

Next big lie:

Testimony and evidence revealed that the vice president dictated precise talking points he wanted Libby and other aides to use to rebut Wilson's accusations against the White House, helped select which journalists would be contacted and worked with Bush to declassify secret intelligence reports on Iraqi weapons that he believed would contradict Wilson's claims.

"There is a cloud over what the vice president did," Fitzgerald told jurors in the prosecution's closing arguments. "That's not something we put there. That cloud is not something you can pretend is not there."

Wait, wait, wait -- ! Isn't that a subjective opinion? How can an opinion (let alone anything subjective) be a "lie?"

Let's deal with this question immediately. What is the definition of a lie? A lie is any word or action intended to deceive. Whether objective or subjective isn't part of the definition... that only speaks to how easy or hard it is to prove. Case in point:

Suppose one of the rabid Republican Coulter-haters were to say, at the end of a harangue about Ann Coulter, the following: "And on top of everything else, she's so fat, it's obvious she's still stuck back in the oral phase of development; she cannot be trusted, because that developmental phase doesn't even understand the distinction between right and wrong."

Is that subjective? Absolutely. Is it an opinion? No question about it: "so fat" is a comparative, and without knowing the thing it's being compared to, it's not a factual statement. Ann Coulter is certainly fat compared to Mahatma Gandhi during a 25-day hunger strike, for example.

Nevertheless, such a statement would be a lie. It's clearly false -- she is actually very thin -- and the intent is to deceive the listener into ignoring what she says on the specious grounds that her "fatness" means she's untrustworthy. A subjective opinion can be a lie, if the intent is to deceive.

Let's get back to Fitzgerald and his imaginary cloud...

The special prosecutor knows that Vice President Cheney has not been convicted of any crime. And why not? Well, for one reason, because Fitzgerald was not even able to get the grand jury to indict him, despite having had ample opportunities before that body.

And why wasn't Fitzgerald able to get the grand jury to indict Cheney? Clearly because the grand jury did not believe there was evidence that Cheney committed any crime!

Thus, what "cloud" is he talking about? Why, the only one we can see is a black cloud of suspicion. And since neither the court nor the grand jury put the suspicion there, Patrick Fitzgerald could only have been talking about what he, himself planted -- precisely by saying "There is a cloud over what the vice president did."

Which makes his second sentence a lie as well... the one where he said, "That's not something we put there." Oh yes you did, Mr. big-shot Special Prosecutor.

And the Washington Post knows it's a falsehood; yet it helps Fitzgerald put it across. The Post is an accessory after the fact to a big, fat, sloppy lie.

Finally, this one is really fascinating:

Fitzgerald and fellow prosecutors showed notes hand-written by Cheney and Libby indicating that the vice president was deeply disturbed by Wilson's explosive accusations that the White House had used bogus intelligence to justify the war. Witnesses and evidence showed Cheney orchestrating a point-by-point response to Wilson's claims -- some of it misleading -- that the administration gave to hand-picked reporters.

What is interesting is the ambiguous way the Post chose to slip this one across. What is the referrant of the word "it" in the parenthetical phrase? What is "misleading" -- Wilson's accusations or Cheney's response?

Fortunately for us (but not for the Post), we can definitively answer that question. "It" is singular... so it cannot refer to Wilson's accusations, which are plural. The pronoun can only substitute for Cheney's singular response.

We all know about the multiple layers of editorial input to which all stories in the elite media are subject; and while they may miss minor things like deceit, misrepresentation, and bare-faced fabrication in the body of a story... I'm certain they're quite strong on noun-pronoun agreement.

When they wrote "some of it is misleading," they meant some of Cheney's response.

This, then, is a direct accusation of deception against the vice president. But there is no attempt to substantiate the charge; it just lies there like a lox, waiting to be gobbled up.

This is clearly meant to make readers believe there is some legitimate body of evidence indicating that Cheney's response to Lyin' Joe Wilson was intentionally deceptive. But by dropping the deception depth-bomb without any intent to back it up, the Post's fraudulent claim itself is an attempt to deceive.

And therefore, this is a third Washington Post lie in the same story.

So that's that, there you have it, and I'm washing my hands of the whole affair. The Post retailed three obvious, provable lies -- in a story about a guy just convicted of lying!

That may become the new dictionary example of chutzpah.

[M. Simon]

A. Q. Kahn, Libya, Iraq

[Chutzpah]

See: Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Page 43 of the document, page 8 of the pdf)

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf

[M. Simon]

Senate Intelligence Committee Report [pdf]

[M. Simon]

Here is how you make permalinks:

<a href="url">text to display</a>

replace url with:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/02/duke-fever.html
leave the quote marks

replace text to display
with
Duke Fever

Duke Fever

[birdseye]

Bush can easily call a press conference and lay down the facts once and for all- like who sent Wilson, etc. Alas, he won't do it. This administration has been taking it and taking it from the Dems and the MSM. Bush has no spine.

[kate]

Bush has neglected to fight back for so long that now he is unable to fight back.

He barely won the 2004 election against a weak candidate and that was mostly due to the bloggers who nailed Dan Rather and the Swiftboat Veterans who took on John Kerry. It certainly was not due to Bush's brilliant debate performances.

I voted for Bush but got Kerry. Weak in foreign affairs, state dept mush.

His military commanders got spooked by the media in the Battle of Fallujah and pulled back.

Who wants to fight for a President who will not fight. He seems defeated and afraid.

[MayBee]

This is what the juror, Denis Collins, just said on Anderson Cooper (attention MJW)-

Just days before Libby was supposed to be surprised, VP Cheney gave Libby a copy of Wilson's OP-Ed with underlines and his handwritten notes on it.

That's a paraphrase.
I'll find the transcript from AC360.
But that is absolutely incorrect. Libby never saw Cheney's article, and there is no evidence they discussed it.

[MayBee]

Here's the transcript:

COOPER: Was there a crucial piece of testimony that convinced you, that convinced the jury, that Libby was guilty on these counts?

COLLINS: There wasn't any crucial piece.

There were many, you know, pieces. And one was, Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in "The New York Times" July 6. And the vice president gave Mr. Libby that article, with handwritten notes on top, about, find out basically if the wife, you know, sent him on this trip.

Now, that was just a few days before Mr. Libby sort of testified, talked, you know, made the statement that he didn't remember or was surprised. And it's very hard to believe he could have forgotten that in that time -- that short a time period.

[american in europe]

One thing the Clintons were really good at was keeping their story in the press and countering negative stories as soon as they appeared. A lot of conservatives complain that the media is hopelessly biassed, and there's a lot of truth to that, but mostly they are lazy, and if you give them a story 2/3 written they will run with it because it makes their lifes easier. The Clintons did that by constantly spoon feeding the press, but the Bush team doesn't seem to make any effort at all. I think they wrote off the media from day one because they thought they would never get a fair hearing, but it was a big mistake. They left the field open to their enemies, and this ridiculous trial is the result.

[kate]

I think Bush is afraid that if he decides to fight it will mobolize his enemies in the media and the Democrats and hurt his agenda.

I would argue that it can't get much worse. That the media senses weakness. We are at war. Bush has an obligation to keep support for the war high. He has failed to do this.

On Brit Hume last night they ended with Bush botching a line in a speech. I felt bad for him, he was not always this bad.

I am rooting for him and I think a fight with the media would energize many people and give him an opportunity to reconnect with the country (the 75% that are total nuts).

[kate]

uggg...(the 75% that are not total nuts).

[PMII]

Anyone surprised by the statements from the jury?

[Jane]

Good Morning!

[hit and run]

It's official. Predictions yesterday of "the sun will come out tomorrow" are true today.

[Terrye]

Kate:

That is too simplistic. The truth is it was the desire to "fight back" that helped make all this happen.

I think Libby got the shaft but if the man had just said I do not recall instead of talking and talking it is doubtful he would be where he is today.

What is Bush supposed to do about that? You say it is Bush's job to keep support for the war high as if people are the Borg and can be programmed to think a particular way.

Bush will end up taking a political hit for this and while I think the whole thing is a travesty of justice, I also think that blaming it on Bush when he was not the one chumming it up with all these reporters is just absurd.

The truth is the media has been out to get this administration for a long time and the business with Rather makes that plain.

Look at Blair in Britain, he is not a pushover for anyone but he has had to endure much of the same nonsense because of the press.

And I think in the long run the press will come out of all this looking not so good. All Bush can do is hope the damage ends with Libby.

[goddessoftheclassroom]

Given the other choices, I will NEVER regret voting for President Bush.

I agree he hasn't played the media well. He wanted to be above it, but it's pulling him down. I think the presiden't definition of "doing the right thing" is about what's best for the country, not what makes him or the Republicans look good.

His decisions may prove to be wrong, but I don't think anyone can accuse him of self-aggrandizement.

I am deeply upset over the Libby verdict. My initial chldish reaction was, "It isn't fair!" However, I have an equally childish belief in right triumphing in the end (however long that takes), so I'm holding fast to that.

Finally, thank you to all of you who have explained issues along the way.

[Tom Maguire]

Predictions yesterday of "the sun will come out tomorrow" are true today.

I thought the forecast was for continued storm and clouds.

[davod]

Russert was on one of late night shows last night.

[Jane]

Here's to a troll free day!

[troll]

Bush lied, people died!

[royf]

That is too simplistic. The truth is it was the desire to "fight back" that helped make all this happen.

You are absolutely correct in your comments, The White House was in the process of getting the NIE declassified so that the facts themselves would debunk Wilson's lying editoral. The White House was trying to get the truth out on this sham to the press.

In the mean time The State department and the CIA were involved in a pissing match, The state department via Armitage leaked Plame's name and status to several journalists to discredit the CIA. The media saw a chance to smear the White House and ran with it, today they still talk about a leak at the White House when it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Plame's name didn't come from the Administration. They also still call Joe Wilson "a critic" instead of the partisan lying hack the Senate Intelligence Report proves him to be.

They never report the Joe Wilson was hired by the Kerry campaign or the he is a Clinton insider. This abomination of a investigation and trial lay at the feet of the media, The White House did all it could to put the facts out there. Those facts were ignored and the MSM twisted falsehood and innuendo into a smear of this Administration.

[hit and run]

TM:
I thought the forecast was for continued storm and clouds.

Oh yea, clouds over the OVP. And Cheney specifically - like Pigpen in Charlie Brown.

Here? Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy. Sunshine in my eyes can make me cry. Sunshine on the water looks so lovely. Sunshine almost all the time makes me high

[Willie Nelson]

Sunshine almost all the time makes me high
That and a little of the herb.

[Missy]

The weather has settled down in the Midwest so hopefully you Easterners will see an improvement soon.

May you get just enough clouds to make a beautiful sunset.

[Pofarmer]

There were many, you know, pieces. And one was, Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in "The New York Times" July 6. And the vice president gave Mr. Libby that article, with handwritten notes on top, about, find out basically if the wife, you know, sent him on this trip.

So the jury didn't even understand the evidence provided them?

It certainly looks like they took "state of mind" evidence and applied it in other ways. Which was exactly what Fitz was hoping for, I imagine.

[hit and run]

Willie, just remember, You can't hang a man for killin a woman who's trying to steal your horse....

Does that relate to Libby? Uh, no (maybe? hmmmm). But it is off my favoritest album ever.

Oh and sunshine on my shoulders wudn't Willie.

It was John Denver, which gets us back to the Aspens, whose leaves should be budding soon and whose roots are connected, etc.

I am quickly veering into Carol territory. Which is not altogether bad, if you have a little of the herb. ::waving at Carol::

[PMII]

What are the chances of getting a new trial? What are the chances of getting a new trial & an unbiased jury? What's the chances of getting a new tial and a jury slanted towards hanging Fitz?

[Alcibiades]

Russert may have looked terrible yesterday, but he's on Imus today and he's absolutely shameless. He just told Imus that it is still unclear whether the VP had input in sending Joe. That Democrat congressman dissented from the Senate report which stated his wife sent him - meaning obviously that that matter is now in dispute.

That Gregory and Mitchell absolutely did not know; that Andrea obviously misspoke during the famous time she said "everyone knew". That the judge was informed of this and decided Andrea's information had no bearing on the case - as though that makes it an absolute fact.

He comes across absolutely convinced and more pompous than ever - now that he is off the stand where his credibility certainly did not look this shiny.

Guilty verdict retrospectively makes all kind of Democrat conspiracies come true.

[Pofarmer]

John Denver and Willie.

Hit and run, I knew you were all right.

[Pofarmer]

What are the chances of getting a new trial? What are the chances of getting a new trial & an unbiased jury? What's the chances of getting a new tial and a jury slanted towards hanging Fitz?

Get a jury outside of any major metro area. Remember the red and blue election maps? There's very few cities where Libby could get a fair trial.

[Pofarmer]

He just told Imus that it is still unclear whether the VP had input in sending Joe.

Some kind of time space paqradigm, then?

[liontooth]

Libby's guilty verdict is the direct result of Wells stupid strategy and Libby going along with it. The proper defense would have been that the wife was an insignificant detail and anyone would easily forget it. The fact is that Armitage nor anyone else was charged with revealing her identity, and Libby's trial should have focused on that fact.

If there was no crime, then there was no cover-up, no reason to lie and no need to have a "fall guy".

[hit and run]

Pofarmer, no clearer childhood memory than riding in the car with my dad singing along with the 8-track..."shotgun willie sits around in his underwear....biting on a bullet, pulling out all of his hair"

I mean, as a kid, singing about underwear?

I know this may come as a surprise to some here, but I found that really funny when I was 8.

[sferris]

It was Colonel Cheney in the Navel Observatory with a shotgun. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty.

[capitano]

Alcibades --

Yes, I agree that Russert was more aggressive, but he sounded unsteady to me and not just because he had a "cold." Very calculated answers. Imus served up the softball criticisms so Russert could inoculate himself with plausible half-answers.

Russert's non-denial denial was that everyone knows Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory as aggressive reporters, so if they knew about Valerie Plame's status they would have been on the air ASAP.

[Pofarmer]

liontooth.

That might be true, except the jury guy said they thought Libby was the fall guy. They just didn't care.

If they misread what the Cheney article represented, which they apparently did, I don't think there's much that could have saved scooter at this stage.

[lurker]

CAptain's Quarters believes that but the conviction under those circumstances is entirely appropriate.

He doesn't understand that this is a case of a missing crime.

[Alcibiades]

capitano,

I agree that Russert's answers all went according to the script, but I didn't hear the unsteadiness myself, and I was listening for it. Though I came in in the middle, so may have missed something at the beginning.

Agree about the non-denial denials, but most people won't look past that now that the guilty verdict is in, because that has changed the landscape considerably. And then he had that whole narrative about wondering quite often about why Libby had used him in the story when it obviously was not true. It did not come across in the least as introspective or modest to me. Just canned.

Though Russert did mention that now as a result of this trial, his job as a reporter will be harder - he meant it in the universal sense, this will be true for all reporters. And the two of them together entirely forgot to mention the fact that he blabbed to the FBI without a subpoena.

[sferris]

Seem to me Libby's entire defense comes down to a pardon. Keep quite and wait. Pathetic.

[capitano]

Alcibiades --

I joined it midway myself and may be reading too much into the sound of his voice (which unfortunately will not come through in transcript form). Maybe he was just recovering from a late night of celebrating.

[liontooth]

Pofarmer:

The juror was refering back to Well's opening,

"It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells [his lawyer] put it, he was the fall guy."

From the beginning, the defense told the jurors something was going on, but that others were trying to use Libby. Your only a fall guy if that something is illegal. If something illegal was going on, then there is the motive for Libby to lie, and that's courtesy of Wells.

[Alcibiades]

Wells has proven quite able at getting off black democrats in Washington; white republicans, not at all.

I agree with MarkO who said that David Boies might have helped Scooter.

[Other Tom]

For those who want a little pick-me-up in addition to the Bloody Marys, have a good read about the judge who will preside over the Wilsons' civil suit. His next act will be to rule on the pending motions to dismiss some time in May. (Sorry, but in my Golden Years I just can't handle creating permalinks.)

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html

Recommended reading for trolls.

[Other Tom]

Beg to differ. I believe Wells represented white Republican Ray Donovan back in the Reagan years. Donovan was completely cleared, but then famously asked, "where do I go to get my good name back?"

[centralcal]

Good morning. I just read Clarice's article at American Thinker. Very well done Clarice!

The liberal democrat media (they are not separate entities, but one and the same) have won another round in destroying the fabric of our country and justice system. We need to do something other than bitc*h, pis*, moan and groan about it.

[Sue]

Did anyone catch Howard Fineman on Keith Olberman last night? I watched in fascination as he told a story that was so far from the truth and if it was even close to the truth, Libby's appeal should be a slam dunk. I don't know how quick they put out transcripts of that show but I'll watch for it. Amazing!

[arcanorum]

Fred Thompson is said to be considering a run for president. (He is also leading the charge for Libby's defense fund).

He has an article up now on National Review regarding the Libby travesty, and it includes his contact email: fthompson@aei.org

He is a solid conservative and has a substantial history in politics (as well as acting). I would encourage anyone to contact him at this email, and encourage him to run. I believe he is the best hope to keep the whitehouse out of the hands of hillary.

[Sue]

And one was, Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in "The New York Times" July 6. And the vice president gave Mr. Libby that article, with handwritten notes on top, about, find out basically if the wife, you know, sent him on this trip.

Is that from a juror? If so, my gawd! Libby testified he had never seen the article until Fitzgerald presented it to him at his gj testimony. And Fitzgerald provided no proof he had seen it.