Tim Russert, Stuck On His Script

Tim Russert, the carefully programmed Manchurian Reporter, stayed on his script when Alan Colmes asked him about his role in the Plame investigation.

Ellen of the Newshounds has the exchange, which reads like all the others when Tim is asked about this.

We have background on his evasions, including the evasive excerpts from his deposition to Fitzgerald.  We are also asking for help in framing the laser-like, no waffle-allowed question for an intrepid interviewer to ask of Tim. 

Our current suggestion:

Mr Russert - without any hedging about whether you actually knew her name, did you discuss Ambassador Wilson's wife with Lewis Libby in any way when you talked with him just prior to the Robert Novak column?  Or had you heard any unconfirmed rumors about Wilson's wife somehow playing a role in the trip to Niger?

Happy hunting.

MORE:  Briefly, on Russert's evasions: "I didn't know" about Plame depends on what it means to "know" something - surely Russert could have mentioned rumor, speculation, allegation, or innuendo to Libby without "knowing" if it were true.

And he told Alan Colmes "I mean, if I had known who she was, you know what? Let me tell you..."

That might mean, he didn't know she was Valerie Wilson Plame, only that Wilson's wife was part of the story; or, it might mean that he had heard rumors that Wilson's wife was involved with Wilson's trip to Niger, but he didn't know where she worked or what she did.

As Ellen points out, saying "I did not discuss Wilson's wife with Libby" should not be that hard.  But instead of saying that, Russert keeps offering dubious reasons that he couldn't have.

WATCHING THE KABUKI:  The defense has a copy of Russert's deposition to Fitzgerald; We the People may not know if all his testimony is as evasive as the bit cited in the court opinion, but they do.  And a straw in the wind, as the Metaphor Mangler kicks into overdrive - the defense is going after the whole NBC newsroom, so they may very well smell a rat.

TRUST BUT VERIFY:  After the jump I have the Lexis trancript, which matches what Ellen provided.  Here are excerpts from Russert last fall on his CNBC show.

Tim Russert Book Looks at Family Relationships

Fox News Network

May 23, 2006

Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes

2329  words

[At the conclusion]:

COLMES: UPI reporting that Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Plame case, said in court papers that Scooter Libby was told in 2003 that Valerie Plame was a classified CIA employee by his boss, Dick Cheney, and previously it was claimed that he was told about Plame by you.

RUSSERT: Yes.

COLMES: Which is the truth? Do you have any idea?

RUSSERT: Well, all I know is what I know personally. That Scooter Libby called me in June to complain about something that had been on a cable TV show. I didn't know who Valerie Plame was until I read Bob Novak's column.

COLMES: You had no idea? Was it known in Washington she was CIA?

RUSSERT: If it was, I missed it. I'll tell you that. And NBC didn't have the story. I wish we had.

COLMES: Yes.

RUSSERT: And now that I read what Mr. Fitzgerald has presented to the court, that not only the vice president, there are at least eight other officials in the government who had conversations with Scooter Libby about Valerie Plame.

COLMES: Right.

RUSSERT: So I'm pretty low down on the food chain.

COLMES: Right.

RUSSERT: And I wish I had known.

COLMES: Was it your sense that he found that out from you before anybody else?

RUSSERT: How could he? I didn't know.

COLMES: Yes.

RUSSERT: If I had known who she was -- you know, let me tell you. And I should say Libby never told me. I wish he had, because I would have called in my correspondents. I would have -- as it turned out, after Libby called me to complain about what was on the show, I called the president of NBC News saying expect a call from Libby. He's furious about what he saw on TV. End of subject.

COLMES: Right. So you never told him. That's not what happened.

RUSSERT: I can't tell anyone what I didn't know myself.

Comments

[clarice]

I did see it--And I must say he's an artful evader..Let's see if Wells does a better job than the interviewers on tv. Well, I'm betting he can. (He also evaded saying what program Libby called to complain about,probably because if he told Libby's version would not seem farfetched.)

[sad]

OT but here is the York article about Larry Johnson courtesy of Lucianne. Do you think York is reading JOM?

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=ZWQ0ZjA1OTQ4NTQ0ZTUxNDcxNDk0ODBjMmIxOTE3NGY=

[maryrose]

Let's just call Russert the artful dodger.

[Dwilkers]

I used to think this was being over-parsed. Now though every time he goes to the trouble to oh so carefully qualify it again my eyebrow goes a bit farther up.

[Kazman]

It seems Russert and Andrea Mitchell are having a contest to see which one can tie themselves into more knots.
Its fun to watch.

[sad]

How much do you suppose his concience is bothering him as we watches Libby's reputation and life in tatters? Or is it easy to shake it off and blame Fitz?

[Pete]

TM - That is an entirely different question than the one you asked two days ago.

Here is what you asked earler: "So, could you clear that up for us now - prior to reading Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, had you heard rumors or allegations that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in some capacity? And did you mention this possibility to Libby?"

Those questions seem to be answered, no?

Colmes: You had no idea – was it known in Washington she was a CIA agent?

Russert: If it was, I missed it, I’ll tell you. ..... And I wish I had known.

Colmes: Was it your sense that he found that out from you before anybody else?

Russert: How could he? I didn’t know.

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/24/
tim_russerts_not_quite_complete_denial_
about_role_in_cia_leak_case.php

[dorf]

How about this TM?

"Ever hear any rumors about Wilson's wife prior to Novak's column?"

Russert would squirm harder than if he was tied up and you held a cheesteak in front of him.

[clarice]

His testimony was that they never discussed Wilson or Plame. If Libby was calling about Chris Matthews show, it is impossible to believe the topic did NOT come up. If the topic did come up and he contends he never told Libby about Wilson's wife, he nevertheless will also show that his memory of the conversation is also imperfect. And he has no notes of it.

[Kevin B]

Just parsing through

[maryrose]

Russert does concede it was possible she was known in DC as a CIA agent- just that he wasn't aware of it. Goes along with Mitchell's everyone knew on that CIA beat.

[Tom Bowler]

What do you suppose the chances are that team Libby will demand a yes or no answer when Russert gets to tell his story from the witness stand?

[fletcher hudson]

clarice-
Are you sure he testified he never discussed Wilson or his wife? Russert in describing his testimony does not go that far. Is it possible the indictment does not inaccurately states "wife" when Russert said "Plame"

[clarice]

In the absence of access to the statement he made which Fitz read to the gj, I cannot be sure of anything. But in his public statements Russert fudges over the program Libby called to complain of and the CW is that it was Matthews program touting Wilson's fable. If the CW is right, it is hard to believe that Wilson and his lies were not the subtext of the conversation.

[fletcher hudson]

I would guess that about half of those who interview Russert do not understand the significance of "Plame" vs. "Wilson's wife" and the other half are too bias to pin him down. We should find out where he will be appearing to promote his book and educate the interviewers

[fletcher hudson]

Strike--"does not"

[JohnH]

TM
I think all of the question formulations are too loose, allowing him to appear to answer yet bend the question slightly by saying "I have been absolutely clear in saying that I did not know who Wilson's wife was."

I favor a different approach. Make an accusation that he has to deny. Say "You have not categorically denied that you had heard anything at all about Wilson being married to someone at CIA."

[maryrose]

JohnH
You right,we need to be more specific.How about this question:
Did you know or hear that Wilson was married to someone at the CIA and when did you hear it?

[topsecretk9]

NRO's media Blog today...What do Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Joe Wilson, David Shuster and Jason Leopold all have in common? Seixon connects the dots:

[cathyf]

Not even that -- I want a question that nails down if Russert knew that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson. Whether or not Russert knew she worked for the CIA. Especially since the behesting could have gone pretty much the same way if Valerie had been a DoS WMD employee rather than a CIA WMD employee.

cathy :-)

[brenda taylor]

well if you listen to russert he denies any knowledge of plame but he is never asked about valrie wilson the truth tellers wife. russert is obvious it does not yake a genius to figure out how these people parse their denials.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

When Russert is questioned on the witness stand Libby's lawyers won't be asking vague questions. He'll be asked a series of question in a logical progression that will defy evasion.

The result of which will be that Russert will end up--my prediction--that he really doesn't remember all that well what they talked about in detail since he doesn't have any notes. The message to the jury being; reasonable doubt.

[Tom Maguire]

From Pete:

Those questions seem to be answered, no?

Colmes: You had no idea – was it known in Washington she was a CIA agent?

Russert: If it was, I missed it, I’ll tell you. ..... And I wish I had known.

Colmes: Was it your sense that he found that out from you before anybody else?

Russert: How could he? I didn’t know.

Well, I don't "know" if Russert evaded the question when he talked to Fitzgerald, but I still manage to talk about it.

So maybe Russert did not "know" whether Wilson's wife was at the CIA, involved with the NIger trip, or even alive.

That does not mean he could not ask Libby about it in an attempt to pin down a single-source rumor passed to him by, e.g., Andrea Mitchell.

Elsewhere, Russert tries this:

NBC didn't have the story. I wish we had.

Again, one source with a rumor is not a "story" in a professional sense. Maybe Russert was trying to fish a confirmtion out of Libby to get NBC "the story".

Patrick - I am leaning that way - on the stand, Russert will run through the reasons it would have been odd for him to ask about the wife, but eventually settle for "I don't remember".

However, on the way to that point, he will have to remember there having been some newsroom buzz about Wilson and wife.

Which will tie in to his explanation from last fall on CNBC:

RUSSERT: I came back after that interview, after The New York Times piece, and there was a discussion about Joe Wilson and I didn't know very much. And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.'

I think Russert floated a question to Libby about the wife to try and help with "what everybody was trying to figure out".

[maryrose]

How about this question:
Who sent Joe Wilson to Niger and why was he picked?Or:
Do you recall any social event you attended with the Wilsons?

[brenda taylor]

i think russert knew .by rhe way whats his title ,not only did andrea mitchell know but matthews was all over it and so was david gregory ,so for him not to know whos who in washington is totally unbeliveable.i dont buy it

[maryrose]

TM:
I think you have it exactly right. Russert needed Libby as a 2nd confirming source and Libby didn't give him anything.

[clarice]

Ts--I beat NRO by months.http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:aV4uACDheMIJ:americanthinker.com/comments.php%3Fcomments_id%3D3690+Clarice+Feldman+VIPS&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>VIPers

What I like about Spruiell's piece is he hangs the dumbbell--or is it, shill?-- laveliers on Shuster and Matthews.

[clarice]

The parsing includes "knowing"..doesn't it?

[Pete]

Doesn't the "newsroom buzz" support the contention that the whisper campaign by the Bush administration was working?

[clarice]

Speculative exchange:

Libby: What the &*^( is Matthews going on about? That story is a pack of lies?

Russert: Why?

Libby:The vice President never sent him. The foregeries played no role in our assessment. The SOTU tracked completely the NIE, the consensus opinion of the intel agencies and we never received any report from Wilson to the contrary.

Russert: I'm hearing rumors about the trip and who picked him for it?

Libby: What rumors?

Russert: They're vague..something about his wife. Everyboody's talking about it.

[Pete]

And talking about carefully worded denials, haven't we heard them from McClennan, Rove, Bush, etc.

"I will fire the leakers". Hmm, I wonder who said that?

[lurker]

Keep the questions VERY simple when asking Russert under the stand.

Instead of "Did you know or hear that Wilson was married to someone at the CIA and when did you hear it?"

When did you know for the first time that Joe Wilson was married to a CIA employee?

When did you hear for the first time that Joe Wilson was married to a CIA employee?

Who told you that Joe Wilson was married to a CIA employee?

How did you learn that Joe Wilson was married to a CIA employee?

[cathyf]

Russert needed Libby as a 2nd confirming source and Libby didn't give him anything.

Hmmm -- maybe Russert was on the lookout for a second source, but he honestly has no idea whether or not he tried the story out on Libby when Libby called him? Maybe the only part Russert is really lying about is that the wifey gossip would have been important to him or NBC before July 12.

cathy :-)

[lurker]

"And talking about carefully worded denials, haven't we heard them from McClennan, Rove, Bush, etc.

"I will fire the leakers". Hmm, I wonder who said that?"

Bush. Mary McCarthy was fired.

Libby is not indicted for leaking.

[lurker]

Don't forget Gonzalez's speech Sunday morning that the CIA / NSA leak investigations are approaching to completion.

[Pete]

Libby may not have been indicted, but the record is pretty clear that he did (as did Rove who leaked to Cooper). You are proving my point about carefully worded denials.

[lurker]

How can Libby be a leaker when Woodward and Novak said that Libby was not their source?

Fitz thought Libby was the first official source but that has since been disproved.

[Tom Maguire]

You are proving my point about carefully worded denials.

Pete, the problem is, you don't have a point, or at least, not a relevant one.

Is your message that its OK for Russert to give faux denials, since Bush does too? Well, Bush won't be on the witness stand, but Russert will be; if he changes his story, we will all hear it, and "OK" or not, it will make major news.

And on one was indicted on the basis of Bush's promise to fire anyone (although is has been factored in to provide a motive to lie), but Russert's story was key in the Libby case.

[clarice]

How can Fitz keep boying the Wilsonista/VIPers lies that there was a concerted Vengence outing when (a) Libby wasn't the outer and (b) he's conceded the person who was had no bad motive.Or when he's faced with the fact that Wilson was the outer--which he will be--he's already said to the Miller court, that he was uninterested in leaks which came from Wilson and his friends, only with leaks that came from the OVP?

Hoist by His Own Deranged Thinking.

[clarice]

***bUying, not boying*******

[lurker]

And there were no leaks coming from OVP as far as we know to date? This includes Rove NOT leaking to Cooper, right?

[clarice]

Rove is not in the OVP. And he, like UGO, warned Cooper not to get out to far ahead on the story. (This BTW with his co-author Calabresi chatting to Wilson.)If UGO (as the "estimable" Meeks reported is a "good leaker" because he warned reporters off the story--so is Rove.

[Pete]

TM - It is certainly not my contention that it is ok for Russert to give faux denials. I don't think that the point has even been made that Russert is giving faux denials.

You posed a question for Russert two days ago. That seems to have been answered by Russert. Now the goalpost has been changed and a new question is on the table. I don't think that Russert is in a position to look at each and every blog and answer each and every question that pops up.

My point is that people are getting very worked up over carefully worded denials which may not even exist, yet at the same time they are oblivious to the carefully worded denials of the Bush administration.

[clarice]

Pete--there does seem an awful lot that sails right over your head...

[PeterUK]

Mr Russert,
Would you feel more comfortable answering these questions whilst wearing an orange jump suit.

[Jeff]

So Tom and clarice, in the spirit of questions looking for a straightforward answer, am I right that you don't think Libby is confusing the conversation with Russert with another conversatio with a different reporter at a different time?

[cathyf]

As for what Rove saying anything about Plame to Cooper, all we have is the uncorroborated word of Cooper. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. (Maybe Cooper knows, maybe he doesn't remember either...)

cathy :-)

[cathyf]

in the spirit of questions looking for a straightforward answer, am I right that you don't think Libby is confusing the conversation with Russert with another conversatio with a different reporter at a different time?

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Maybe it is unknowable because nobody remembers.

cathy :-)

[Jeff]

Nice evasion and hedge, cathy. I tried much harder to be straightforward with your questions.

[sad]

Jeff
What's wrong with considering both possibilities?

[Cecil Turner]

Nice evasion and hedge, cathy. I tried much harder to be straightforward with your questions.

You certainly tried harder than Russert did.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

' Russert will run through the reasons it would have been odd for him to ask about the wife, but eventually settle for "I don't remember".'

It's the only safe play for him.

'However, on the way to that point, he will have to remember there having been some newsroom buzz about Wilson and wife.'

I think he'll plead fuzzy memory there too. I would. No sense giving Fitz ANY target for a follow up perjury charge. It's going to be a lot neater trick for Andrea to pull off in explaining her conversation with Gloria Borger and Alan Murray though.

[clarice]

(a) Libby may have confused it with another conversation,(b) Russert may have evaded the truth or misremembered himself, (c) but in any event he has no notes of the conversation and he never was subjected to real examination before the gj on the point.

The problem with criminalizing the account of Libby while giving a pass to the reporters whose accounts differ from his, is that the gambit is unlikely to hold up on cross. And that goes for Russert, Cooper and Miller.

[cathyf]

Your answers were highly informative, Jeff. The third question is a standard test for autism, and you gave the autistic answer. And it really makes sense, in that you clearly don't know what the words "evasion" or "hedge" mean, either. In very much the same sense that a blind person can never know the meaning of "red".

I think that my point is the absolute centrality of the case, which is that if somebody does not know something, then no matter how many times you ask, how many times you haul him in front of a grand jury, no matter what you threaten him with, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and pound your fist and shout your disbelief, no matter how much he wants to answer your questions, if he doesn't know then he doesn't know.

Not being able to understand this is in the fundamental nature of autism, which is the profound inability to understand something in the context of someone else's perspective.

cathy :-)

[owl]

RUSSERT: Well, all I know is what I know personally. That Scooter Libby called me in June to complain about something that had been on a cable TV show. I didn't know who Valerie Plame was until I read Bob Novak's column.

Okay, this is what I asked about a few days ago when I read it in the filings. It said June and July. No one answered.

The indictment talks about Libby calling "on or about July 10".

Tell me again about June and what in heck did I sleep through...

[PeterUK]

TM,
Pete does have a point,trying to stop his world view from being annihilated,nobody likes being told that there is no Santa Claus,Easter Bunny or Little White Hen.Goodness knows what he will do if you tell him there is no Tooth Fairy.

[cathyf]

Scooter Libby called me in June

Good point. I always just assumed that it was a mis-speaking on Russert's part or a transcription error in the transcript. I wonder if it is something else?

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Oh, you're talking about the JULY conversation? I can't remember. LOL

[Jeff]

Ooh, Cathy you and your expert knowledge trying to pathologize me really makes me feel bad. You succeeded. I'm autistic, the horror. Frankly, I am happy to have my ability to understand something in the context of someone else's perspective compared with that of anyone else who posts here.

The funny thing is, I didn't ask what Libby and Russert know, think, or recall. I asked Tom and clarice what they thought happened, picking up on the clear implication, in comments they made, that they thought the Russert conversation went more or less the way Libby has testified it did, which is at odds with the alternative suggestion that in fact Libby is mistaking the Russert conversation for a different conversation. You gave a could be either answer, and then you seem to be answering a different question. If it wasn't a dodge or a hedge, it was flatout misunderstanding of the question I was asking. Is that a sign of autism?

[owl]

Grrrr...making me nuts. I thought I had been keeping up so either I had a Libby Moment or I did not know they talked twice.

[clarice]

Actually, owl you made an excellent point. And we all missed it until now.

[owl]

Pg 13 of the 43pgs...I have a note that I jotted that said either June and July ....or June or July

[PeterUK]

Cathy,
Another indicator is the inability to understand irony.

[owl]

I am a lousy detective....I can't even find that 43 pgs now

[maryrose]

Jeff:
I think TM has been more than fair to you in his comments and I don't see the need for you to try and lump all our opinions together as one thought process. We all have our own views. Your snarky comments seem to me to be directed towards the women on this blog that are highly intelligent and that possibly you fear are a little bit smarter than you on this issue.

[owl]

filing 5/17/06 by Libby team...pg 13

I wondered if it was Lawyer Speak when I first read it but it seemed to be different from when he asked for the July 10 and/or 11.

All documents reflecting or referring to any other telephone conversations between Tim Russert and I Lewis Libby during June or July 2003.

[maryrose]

owl;
you are getting to the heart of it. Hang in there.

[cathyf]

Clarice, you've been a prosecutor (unless I'm *chuckle* misremembering). So what do you do when you have a case where nobody remembers anything, but it's not because they are lying but instead because your case is crap and it's completely reasonable that no one remembers?

Remember the whole "recovered memory" industry from a few years back? Where adults would "remember" things that "happened" decades before, and then some poor schmuck would be hauled off to jail with no evidence other than the "memories"? The neurology of amnesia of traumatic events is pretty well understood. Basically, the neurotransmitters released during physical and emotional trauma interfere chemically with the neurotransmitters that form long-term memory. What was so fascinating about the whole "recovered memory" thing (besides the horror of the poor victims punished for things that never happened or that they had nothing to do with) is the number of people who simply refuse to accept that when a memory does not form of some event, then the memory of the event is just gone. And if there is no one who has any memory of what happened, and there is no obvious physical evidence, then what happened is unknowable. It's like people think that life is really a movie, where the viewers know what's going on even though the characters don't, and it all has to wrap up neatly at the end. Even in a Seinfeld show about nothing, at the end Seinfeld comes out with his stand-up routine and the "something" turns into the punch line. But life isn't a movie, or even Seinfeld, and sometimes nothing really is nothing. Even worse, sometimes things are really irretrievably lost, and no temper tantrum in the world can get them back.

The whole Fitzgerald prosecution looks to me like some sort of bizarre autistic bullying tantrum. The autistic observer believes that Suzy is "lying" when she says the ball is in the box in the middle when the ball is in fact in the box on the right, because the whole notion that Suzy's assertions are limited by her actual by-necessity incomplete knowledge is as utterly incomprehensible to an autistic person as long division is to someone who has Williams Syndrome. The whole internal logic of the indictment: Libby was told about Plame, and he retained everything he was told. We know that he retained everything he was told about Plame because Plame's CIA employment was so important. We know that Plame's CIA employment was so important because Patrick Fitzgerald was interrupted in his important duties prosecuting terrorists and corrupt politicians in order to investigate who disclosed her CIA employment. Since Plame is important, Libby is "lying" when he says he didn't find her to be important. So Libby is "lying" when he says that he put Plame's identity in the "ignore" box just like Suzy is "lying" when she says she but the ball in the center box.

Even the mildly retarded get the whole "perspective" thing in ways that highly intelligent autistic people just can't. That "lying" is about what an individual says in relation to his own internal knowledge, not about the relationship to objective fact. That if your knowledge is mistaken, that you can accidentally say something that is factually correct even though you believe what you are saying is false -- in other words you can lie even when the words you say happen to be true. And conversely, you can tell the truth as you know it, even though the things you say are objectively false as known to other people.

cathy :-)

[lemondloulou54]

Did cathyf just prove that Libby is autistic? Is that why is nickname is "Scooter?"

[owl]

I watched Russert on tv and have a message to send to team Libby.....you better have something good on the Russert thing because he comes across as close to jolly St Nick ho ho ho as they come.

Who would ever believe you over Santa out there touting his pictures of him, his son and his Dad? His appearance looks exactly opposite from what he did on Broussard.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

RUSSERT: I came back after that interview, after The New York Times piece, and there was a discussion about Joe Wilson and I didn't know very much. And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, `Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.'

Russert may not have an exact memory or he may be a baldface liar.

He participated in "a discussion."

Apparently, in this discussion, everybody was trying to "figure out" who/what on Wilson. Now we have "discussions" here on JOM all the time and we try to "figure" out who/what on Wilson. Discussions and trying to figure out mean I posit an idea, you support or knock down my idea, the next person chimes in with more info that supports or knocks down and around the room you go. I would ask Russert to recount as close to verbatim as he can the exact conversation in the "discussion" and what they were trying to "figure out." What speculations were being advanced and by whom? What facts were being advanced and by whom? What was his contribution to the "discussion," what kind of questions did he ask in trying to "figure out."

[owl]

so when was this discussion? And why was he talking about June on tv?

[Sue]

I am happy to have my ability to understand something in the context of someone else's perspective compared with that of anyone else who posts here.

I am happy for you too...if I understand what you are trying to say...

[Jeff]

The autistic observer believes that Suzy is "lying" when she says the ball is in the box in the middle when the ball is in fact in the box on the right, because the whole notion that Suzy's assertions are limited by her actual by-necessity incomplete knowledge is as utterly incomprehensible to an autistic person

cathy, now I'm starting to doubt your expertise, since this is nothing like the answer I gave, yet you accused me of - er, diagnosed me as, er, something - giving the autistic answer. In fact, I gave an uncertain answer based on the fact that we don't know how far Suzy's knowledge extends.

[owl]

July 6? was the op-ed/MTP Wilson

Indictment says July 10 or 11?

Date on discussion?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Continuing with Russert and his "discussion" -- it is obvious from his statement that when he read Novak's column it all became clear to him. Obviously the sum of all he heard in the "discussion" suddenly made sense, so I am left to assume he heard some things that would fit with the facts revealed in Novak. So for him to say he knew nothing before reading the column is a baldface lie. In fact, he doesn't really say he knew nothing, he says he "didn't know very much." So how much did he know? What specific facts did you know Mr. Russert when participating in this "discussion" and what specific facts did you hear discussed by others in the "figure out" group?

[Tomf]

Russert may have come across as "jolly as
St. Nick" up until Colmes said the word Plame, then he looked about as comfortable as Joe Wilson would look sitting next to a polygraph machine.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

And lastly, who were the members of the "figure out" group?

[Cecil Turner]

Ooh, Cathy you and your expert knowledge trying to pathologize me really makes me feel bad.

It may also be a left-handed compliment. Your retention of detail is certainly superior to most.

I asked Tom and clarice what they thought happened, picking up on the clear implication, in comments they made, that they thought the Russert conversation went more or less the way Libby has testified it did, which is at odds with the alternative suggestion that in fact Libby is mistaking the Russert conversation for a different conversation.

It could also be both. Russert's denials are suspicious, but it's hard to see what he's waffling about. The timing doesn't seem to work out for Libby (and it doesn't make sense as misdirection, since it came after easily-checked conversations). Which makes me think either those conversations weren't quite as advertised, or he's conflating. (I think there's a couple other places where he's obviously conflating talking points . . . e.g., when saying he didn't even know Wilson had a wife.) That sort of thing tends to happen when you tell a story several times (like to reporters). He may also be misdirecting on outing Plame . . . but because his thought process is so jumbled, it's hard to tell. Compare that with the carefully-worded misdirection by Wilson, and it's obvious who had a plan and who was reacting.

[Jeff]

I just want to point out that if Russert is lying, this is perhaps his most audacious version of the content of his lie (it presumably being more audacious overall to lie under oath). Look at this:

RUSSERT: And now that I read what Mr. Fitzgerald has presented to the court, that not only the vice president, there are at least eight other officials in the government who had conversations with Scooter Libby about Valerie Plame.

There is no reason to think that all of those government officials used or knew the name "Valerie Plame," and there is in fact good reason to think otherwise. So that means that when he is talking about what others said and knew, Russert is perfectly use "Valerie Plame" as interchangeable with other ways of referring to Joseph Wilson's wife. But that means in turn that when he is talking about his own knowledge, he cannot by rights use "Valerie Plame" in order to exclude his knowledge of "Wilson's wife" or what have you. In other words, either he is happy to use "Valerie Plame" interchangeably with "Wilson's wife" and so on, and he is telling the truth; or he is really really audaciously lying, reserving a precision of usage for himself that he explicitly does not extend to others.

I report, you decide.

[owl]

One reason I do not believe him is because of his interview of Condi June 13? I think he would know a lot about Wilson before he pushed that hard. Wilson was too connected with too many people (read Mac's links) for all of them not to know Val.

[Jeff]

Cecil - I figured you'd go for both, since unless you buy the bafflegab theory, the timing doesn't work for Libby even if the conversation with Russert went exactly as he said it did. And you're on record thinking Libby may well have confused the Russert conversation with another, earlier conversation. But you also seem to buy the bafflegab theory. As for the bafflegab, I simply don't see how Libby's thought process is jumbled; and it usually looks not much more than a convenient defense. I can understand what he says perfectly, from what we've seen, especially if, as a rightie here admirably did a number of months ago, you include the requisite quotation marks to distinguish where Libby is quoting 2003 discussion rather than testifying directly. (The transcripts of grand jury testimony we've seen on that don't include the quotation marks.) I see no jumble, no bafflegab.

Though I expect cathy to accuse me of failing to see Libby's utter incoherence from his perspective, like all of you do.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Jeff -- Washington is the town of plausible deniability. Everyone could have known all the facts of the case and not known Val was Joe's wife, and they would have plausible deniability. They could have known Val was Joe's wife and not known she was CIA, thereby plausible deniability. The could have know Val was Joe's wife and that she worked for CIA and not known she sent him to Niger, thereby plausible deniability.

Russert admits he did "know much" but that isn't the same as not knowing any of the facts. So which facts did he know? Which part of Novak was the final clue that turned "not much" into an epiphany?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Yikes, sorry -- should read "admits he DIDN'T know much..."

[JM Hanes]

Jeff

"Nice evasion and hedge, cathy."

You could say the same thing about Fitzgerald indicting Libby for lying about his knowlege of Plame in an exchange he lied about having with Russert. Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to bother you.

[JM Hanes]

Ditto for the eerily similar tone in the Libby & Russert disclaimers [ellided for economy]:

LIBBY: “And then he said, you know, did you know that this -- excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it….And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning.”

RUSSERT: “I came back after that interview, after The New York Times piece, and there was a discussion about Joe Wilson and I didn't know very much. And then when I read Novak's column the following Monday, I said, Oh, my God, that's it. Now I see. It's his wife, Valerie Plame, CIA, sent him on the trip. Now I understand what everybody was trying to figure out.”

Ya pays yr money, ya takes yr choice.

[clarice]

He suggested last night that he didn't know in June but did know after the Novak article..But July10 or 11 is after the Wilson op ed and he admits they were discussing it then. Add that to the sluffing over the substance of the Libby call and--if I were playing battleships with Little Tim--I'd say I can figure out where the fleet is hiding.

Cathy, you have always presented the most cogent explanations of human memory processes..I recall the office I worked in had --before I was working there--relied on some goofball expert who claimed that even if a witness had only a fleeting view of the perp , if it was under really traumatic circumstances, that memory was most likely to be accurate. Nonsense. I never eye witness id's of events which occurred decades before unless that witness had a long term knowledge of the perp (lived in the same village/saw him every day for a considerable period because of his work , etc.) .

[Appalled Moderate]

The whole heart of the Libby prosecution is that he said -- in essence -- that the Plame business was so not central to his thought process that he forgot he had ever been told his real identity by Cheney and bu others in the government. The conversations Libby had with reporters -- and the imperfect memories about note-free conversations that will be 3-4 years old by the time this gets to trial -- are most of the indictment and mostly beside the point. This case will be won or lost on Libby's assertion that he was not focusing on using the Plame junket argument as a way to refute Wilson's charges.

[clarice]

AM, that seems exactly why Fitz is fighting discovery requests which show all the other stuff Libby and the OVP WERE working on at the time.

[maryrose]

Owl:
I along with you would still like an answer to the July question.
Shuster on Hardball admitting gj met but Fitz not there today finally being honest after getting burned last weekend.
Had 2 prosecutors on -one says because Rove not cleared yet could be indicted,Then a clip of Fitz from presser talking about truth.
Then other prosecutor said Fitz is very thorough and is probably seeing if he can make the case against Rove on one indictment but won't go ahead unless he can make the case stick.

[clarice]

A littel late for Shuster to be making those tiny backstrokes..P.S. I sent MSNBC the Spruiell piece..

[Appalled Moderate]

clarice:

And it's behind his use of the Cheney marked-up copy of the Wilson op-ed. Because Fitz will use an argument that the veep's big concerns are going to be Libby's big concerns, by virtue of his job.

[windansea]

Jeff

speaking of evasions....

[Libby] was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

Cheney told investigators that he had learned of Plame's employment by the CIA and her potential role in her husband being sent to Niger by then-CIA director George Tenet

I wonder if Jeff wants to remind us again how "the CIA" continues to maintain that Val had no role in Joe's selection...looks like 2 named senior CIA officials are on record saying she did....Novak got the same info and that's the reason he named her.

"Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America,'" Novak wrote.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

"Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America,'" Novak wrote.

And Novak is the only person in Washington reaching for his well thumbed copy of Who's Who? I doubt it.

[PeterUK]

It also depends on the overblown status of Plame.Fitzgerald tried to blow this out of all proportion at his presser.
Larry the Liar has been hoeing this row for quite some time.

"Johnson maintained that the leak did horrendous damage. “Not only was her cover destroyed, but an undercover company was destroyed,” he said in April on MSNBC. “Intelligence assets that were involved with trying to determine, detect, and protect America against weapons of mass destruction — they were destroyed in that leak.”

[clarice]

And he knows this from his time there analyzinf transport security in Central America, I take it? Well, you have to hand it to this expert, he called the threat exactly right on his famous op ed just before 9/11.

Come too think of it, so did his cohort, Richard Clarke who was certain it was an IT attack we needed to worry about.

Or his other cohort Pillar who believed we just had to live with terrorism. The real threat was an elected executive audacious enough to think he, not the mandarinate should determine foreign policy, a view shared by their other pal, MOM.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I don't know how reporters do it, but the Congresswoman I worked for EXPECTED her aides to research the people she was expected to schmooze at fund raisers. She EXPECTED her aides to know and to inform her of any potential conflicts of interest that could come back to bite her. She did not go to a fund raiser without a fairly good idea about the background of all those she intended to hit up for their money. That included looking them up in trade magazines, lexis nexis searches, particularly on positions taken on key issues, and a search of references like Who's Who. It also behooved the aide to know who was capable of giving the max and who would only be good for a $10 contribution. And if there was any suspicion a potential contributor worked for the government, special care was taken because of FEC regulations and the fact that our CFO was brutal in denying contributions if there was any doubt as to conflict.

[Kate]

maryrose-nice to know that poor Shuster actually has to some reporting now that he's been told not to take steno from the VIPS and Leopold anymore and pass it off as original reporting.

So the idiot has 2 prosecutors on...one says that Rove could be indicted and the other says that, er, Rove might be indicted. And then we have Dave to even the panel out.

I don't like that guy, can you tell?

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Roumour has it that he was a lock keeper on the Panama Canal.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

"Johnson maintained that the leak did horrendous damage. “Not only was her cover destroyed, but an undercover company was destroyed,” he said in April on MSNBC. “Intelligence assets that were involved with trying to determine, detect, and protect America against weapons of mass destruction — they were destroyed in that leak.”

My new theory on Larry is that he is/was carrying a torch for Val. And/or he has/had a vested financial interest in whatever Brewster-Jennings was being used for as the cover organization.

Others who work in Washington can confirm or deny, but my experience was that CIA front companies were those things everyone knew about but everyone knew not to talk about except among others you were sure were in the know.