Let's Get Ready To Russert!

Tim Russert is on deck in the Libby trial, so let's have some background.

Per the indictment, Libby falsely claimed that Tim Russert told him about Valerie Plame on July 10 or 11: Libby also was hearing this "as if for the very first time", since he had forgotten the earlier mention from Cheney:

20. On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with Russert.

...

26. As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:

a. During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.

That leads to the following charges:

33. It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:

a. When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10, 2003:

i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions...

And let's include one more for a flavor of Libby's testimony:

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

1. The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth herein.

2. On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia,

I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"

defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):

. . . . 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 -- he may have said a little more but that was -- he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. 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. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that this -- you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with you, and he said, that's fine. So then he said -- I said -- he said, sorry -- he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah -- yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the conversation, something like that.

3. In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:

a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and

b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;

So - did Russert in fact mention Valerie Plame, or Wilson's wife, to Libby?  Russert has stood by a stock, overly-specific denial, an example of which is here:

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".  But did he?

Well, Andrea Mitchell had the following exchange on Oct 3, 2003, to which Libby attorney Wells alluded in his opening statement:

MURRAY And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

Ms. Mitchell has since back-pedaled from that. 

In addition Ari Fleischer told the court that on the morning of July 11 2003 he leaked the Plame news to John Dickerson (then of TIME) and David Gregory of NBC, Russert's subordinate in the Washington bureau.

So it may well be that two of Russert's subordinates had picked up on the Plame tidbit.  Did they pass it on to Tim?  This episode of "The Tim Russert Show", which aired immediately after the Libby indictment, looks like a group exercise in story-doctoring but it certainly suggests that the reporters would have shared news if they had it.

So why did Libby call Russert?  A note was introduced in court today (we saw it but the jury perhaps never will) with media advice for Libby from Mary Matalin - she suggested Libby call Russert to complain about Chris Matthews' coverage of Wilson and the Niger trip.  Russert has said that Libby called to complain about some NBC News coverage, but has not specified the complaint.  Well, Libby did not call to vent about NBC's coverage of the Cheney's energy task force; he called to complain about their coverage of the Niger trip, which certainly improves the odds that the topic of who actually sent Joe Wilson came up.  Michael Crowley and Jeralyn Merritt had picked out this July 8 Chris Matthews show as the likely object of Libby's ire; I had also suggested this July 9 episode, which features multiple uses of "behest".

And left unmentioned in Russert's testimony - Libby may also have launched into a tirade accusing Matthews of anti-semitism; Mickey Kaus broke this and provides a cogent discussion of the "anti-neocon=anti-Semite" meme that floated around for a while.

So - did Russert learn from Mitchell or Gregory that Wilson's wife was at the CIA?  If so, Russert misled the grand jury and Fitzgerald's case will be taking on water.  Strictly speaking, of course, even if Russert did tell Libby about Plame on the 11th, that can't explain how Libby was chatting about it with Miller on the 8th; however, if even Tim Russert could mislead a grand jury, what other reporters might also have done so? 

Maybe (the defense will argue, and I am just thinking out loud) Libby's real "Reminder" was Andrea Mitchell in a phone call to Libby's house on July 6, following her guest-hosting of Meet The Press featuring her interview with Joe Wilson.  Libby remembered the "Meet The Press" angle, figured it must have been Russert, checked the White House phone logs, saw he called Russert on the 10th, and back-fitted a story that defied space-time.  Have Libby's home phone records for incoming calls been checked?  And did Andrea Mitchell deny disclosing Plame to Libby - my impression from Well's opening statement (as well as her own ambiguous statements) is that she was never asked.  In any case, that is just one hypothetical.

I expect the defense will hammer the "What did Russert know and when did he know it" angle.  It appeared that Matt Cooper backed Ari Fleischer's claim to have leaked to Dickerson and Gregory, so the suspense mounts.

Comments

[matty]

mr. maguire,

i don't always agree w/ you on this case, but i admire your tenacity in following it. i was wondering what you've thought of judge walton's handling of the case so far.

just a personal curiosity. he grew up w/ my dad, and has done well for himself, facing from not the easiest circumstances. i'm hoping he doesn't end up the new judge ito.

[Javani]

I think the judge has done a fine job in this trial.

Now some will way a year or two back he sounded like he believed Fitz too much (keeping UGO secret, etc.) but he has a dose of cynicism now.

He's keeping some mild scope limits on both sides, though perhaps not as much as he hoped before the opening statements - of both sides - widened scopes.

[Enlightened]

Let's not make any comments on Russert before he testifies! He might get some ideas from the great thinkers here.

:o) We don't want him to mis-remember or recollect something that didn't appear before th GJ.

[MayBee]

Doesn't it kind of sound like Libby's thinking of his conversation with Matt Cooper?

The only problem I see for Libby is that he says, "at that time I didn't know it to be true". Does that rise to the level of a Federal perjury charge?

[roanoke]

Let's get Ready to Russert! Ha!

Anyways found a clip of the Klaus anti-semitic story -Libby call to Russert

Plame Simmers--The Antiliberalism of Fools: Finally, someone follows up on what kf thought was kf's Big Plamegate Scoop** of 11/7/05: that the complaint Scooter Libby made to Tim Russert, in their crucial phone conversation of July 10, 2003, was the (to my mind wacky)charge that Chris Matthews or his cable show was somehow, in some sense, anti-Semitic. ... Maguire plausibly speculates that one reason Libby might have been so peculiarly enraged by Amb. Joseph Wilson's TV appearances*** is that Libby put Wilson into that same category. Remember, Matthews said to kf that

Catherine Martin, an aide in the vice president's office, once told him that "Scooter thinks anytime anybody uses the word 'neoconservative' it's anti-Semitic." [Emph added]

Maguire notes that if his speculation is right it makes Libby look more convictable of perjury but also more like a "lone gunman." ... Second thought: It not only makes Libby look more convictable of perjury. It makes him look more like someone who might just have been so enraged by Wilson that he'd do more or less what the left accuses him of having done--out Wilson's wife in an attempt to both discredit Wilson and punish him. Duh! It certainly provides an answer to the Why-Didn't-They-Just-Ignore-Wilson-He'd-Blow-Over question. I think I buried the lede. ...

Link to cached Slate.com

[clarice]

Actually, the Matalin memo was discussed but not introduced into evidence.The judge's preliminary ruling was that it didn't seem relevant to any issue but more importantly it's prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value it might have.
Really, it shouldn't be discussed as it is not in evidence but since it's all over the place and all the reporters saw it up on the screen I expect the normal rules are being ignored.

[clarice]

Let me take a stab here--Russert gor presidential treatment by the SP--just a 22 miute chat or so with no real interrogation, no questioning of Mitchell or Gregory. And let me surmise that when the SP called tosee if they could prep him and go over his testimony before trial,,he said (not yes).

[Jim E.]

Russert spoke in Oklahoma just a few days ago and reiterated that he was not the recipient of the leak. He seems to be pretty clear -- no parsing -- that he had no idea about Wilson's wife. He made the Libby call sound one-sided, with Libby doing the talking.

While I think Russert has been unprofessional throughout this -- occasionally discussing the story on MTP without disclosing his own involvement in it -- I don't think his appearance will bode will for Libby in the least, especially if there's any truth to the charges of anti-Semitism. (How could he ever forget a call like that?) I think having Russert on the stand will be the worst moments in the trial for Libby.

[topsecretk9]

--The only problem I see for Libby is that he says, "at that time I didn't know it to be true". Does that rise to the level of a Federal perjury charge?---

If the jury is willing to except that the purpose and people a person spends 85 days in jail protecting are so forgettable then a fact - such as CIA? or INR? or whatever is at least as forgettable and slight less unbelievable.

[topsecretk9]

--reiterated that he was not the recipient of the leak. --

Can you tell me in the indictment where is says Libby leaked to Russert?

Thanks.

[Syl]

Andrea cannot backpedal from her entire statement. She can about the bit of all reporters knowing--how could she know that?

But backpedal on 'But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.'?

No way without calling herself a liar or disseminator. If she wasn't aware of her 'actual' role, what role was she aware of?

Odd, isn't it, that Russert says the same thing.

About Gregory? I think he already knew too. That's why he didn't pick up on Ari---the CIA part wasn't news to him and thus not a jolt factor and he probably figured Ari was disparaging Wilson just like Cooper did. So Gregory forgot Ari told him--it didn't register.

Chris Matthews to this day believes in the behesting even if it was indirect. Chrissy is not in the loop.

Late and I'm rambling.

Bottom line, I don't know what Russert will say. I've predicted he'll say he just doesn't remember.

But somehow the defense will get it out of russert, gregory, or andrea or all that they knew. But that may not come until the defense case.

Tomorrow may just be dull.

[Javani]

""Russert spoke in Oklahoma just a few days ago and reiterated that he was not the recipient of the leak.""

That's one of his snaky tricks -- no one ever accused him of being it, Mitchell or other NBC worker probably told him.

"He seems to be pretty clear -- no parsing -- that he had no idea about Wilson's wife."

I have never seen him say he had no idea. Said he didn't know here position at the CIA, yes, but little more than that.

[ghostcat]

And riddle me this: should the Washington Bureau Chief of NBC News be held accountable for the work and professional behavior of reporters in his Bureau?

Mitchell? Gregory? Matthews?

[Jim E.]

Ts9 wrote: "Can you tell me in the indictment where is says Libby leaked to Russert?"

It doesn't show up in the indictment. Why would it? I'm not aware of a single person -- not even among the creative minds in these comment threads -- who has ever suggested Libby leaked to Russert.

The point is that Russert claims 100 percent total ignorance, implying that neither Mitchell or Gregory leaked info to him. Which is a problem for Libby, since Libby claims he learned about Wilson's wife from Pumpkinhead.

[ghostcat]

John E. -

That's why Mitchell is a DEFENSE witness.

[ghostcat]

Sorry ... Jim E.

[Other Tom]

I can imagine, if I were a juror, thinking by now that this whole thing is so silly it's almost unbelievable. But then, my bias would have got me excused for cause anyway.

[Jim E.]

ghostcat,

You privy to the defense witnesses? Do share.

[Syl]

JimE

Andrea is on the list, sweetie.

[topsecretk9]

----the CIA part wasn't news to him and thus not a jolt factor and he probably figured Ari was disparaging Wilson just like Cooper did. So Gregory forgot Ari told him--it didn't register.--

I think you've nailed it Syl...but this is where I disagree...Calbresi was in contact with Wilson before Cooper called Rove but AFTER Wilson was on alert since Novak called hot on the wife.

Cooper's "notes" bear out that there was NO War on Wilson - but the WAR on Wilson was the working premise of the piece BEFORE Cooper went out to seek those disparaging (eyeroll) "confirmations"

They'd be embarrassed and hard pressed to admit they were just doing Wilson's supplied narrative bidding, a repeat of "Repeat ANYTHING without confirmation" Kristof

[topsecretk9]

JimE -

I would remind you that you forever disputed Andrea Mitchell ever said EVER "it was widely known"

[clarice]

Russert has no notes..I expect he'll say he didn't know she was with the CIA..But the defense knows what Libby said (and it may not match the indictment..none of the testimony does) and on cross the defense will get him to concede he doesn't have a photographic memory he may have said something less concrete which nevertheless triggered Libby's memory of his earlier conversation with Cheney.
Any person who could claim with any degree of certainty that w/out any notes or post conversation writing he could be certain of everything he said. I expect he may have said something like--I heard Wilson had some friend at the CIA or at State or at INR--who sent him on this trip

[Other Tom]

No court on Friday, right?

[topsecretk9]

JimE says:

--The point is that Russert claims 100 percent total ignorance--

Really, a 100%? You want to bet that bottle of Merlot your were too chicken to last time?

[Jim E.]

I would remind you, TS9, that I conceded error the instant I became aware of the authenticated quote. I logged on to admit error in a comment thread right away. So, no, not "forever." And the same day the quote was provided (now that I'd learned Mitchell appeared on a little-watched, since cancelled program), I dug up another quote that focused even more attention on Mitchell.

Other than that, yeah, I'm totally in denial about Mitchell. Mmm-kay.

[Javani]

"Russert has no notes..I expect he'll say he didn't know she was with the CIA"

He'll say he didn't know what her position was at the CIA, which is what he said publicly.

[Syl]

a problem for Libby, since Libby claims he learned about Wilson's wife from Pumpkinhead.

That's what everybody claims 'cause they follow what fitz says, as if what a prosecutor claims is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I mean why have trials?

We all may be conflating the information that may have been learned anew by Libby.

wilson's wife
sent on trip
works in govt. INR, whatever

New information? CIA CPD WMD any of these might apply.

[ghostcat]

Yes, but beyond that Russert is in a management position. By journalism's own logic, he should be aware of everything his subordinates know and do. By that logic, if Gregory and/or Mitchell and/or Matthews knew about Wilson/Plame, then Russert knew too! Or should have, if he's competent.

[Javani]

""MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger.... So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

Ms. Mitchell has since back-pedaled from that""

Repeating that because...
she prolly told Russert she didn't know the "actual role." Russert has said the same.

If Mitchell back-pedaled, that's fine..but before that did she tell "all the reporters" knew to Russert?

[clarice]

I agree..Javani is right too--He will confess to some vague knwledge of Plame (not by name) was going around and while it's possible he said something he has no recollection of anything specific..Can't wait to see what the transcript of his 22 minute visit with the feds reads like..

[topsecretk9]

I still contend that the "for the very first time" related to him figuring out the little lying weasle "selectively leaking" in the CIA was one in the same - the information triggered by the 'reporters all know" and "CIA" - bunch of departments coming into focus, CIA INR, Grossman state, wife sent him was only important to answer OVP sent, connected lying weasle to be the one who sent husband. - --AH she's the one who has been leaking - that's why they all know!

[Syl]

I liked Tom's idea of Andrea calling Libby on the 6th. :)

(Where did that come from? Has Tom mentioned that before?)

But even if it were Russert on the 10th who do we have telling Libby that she was CIA between the trifecta and the 10th?

We have Libby to Miller re wife where the Winpac is written in her notes on the 8th.

We Ari saying Libby told him on the 7th. But we don't know for SURE if Libby told Ari she was CIA or if she was bureau and involved in CIA sending him on the trip.

Cathy Martin's relayed info wasn't acknowledged.

Weren't the others dated around Cheney time?

Then there was Edelman? and the request for info re paperwork if spouse sent. That could have been after the 10th.

Judy's June seems to be a red herring. 'Bureau' does not equate with 'CIA'.

Cooper is after the 10th as well.

So there you have it.

[clarice]

Smoething like that.
You know, for those who consider BushLied and Fitzmas articles of faith, our hilarity at the utter idiocy of this must really drive them over the bend.

[topsecretk9]

--By that logic, if Gregory and/or Mitchell and/or Matthews knew about Wilson/Plame, then Russert knew too! Or should have, if he's competent.--

And Gregory has given HIs account?

Perhaps he'd NOW like to approach a little known paper instead of the greater WH press pool to account for this matter?

HA. HAHA. HAA HAA HAA HAA.
( he's a sucky proxy)

Clarice -
you mentioned Dickerson left. Your take is he's being solid - he doesn't remember Ari saying that to him. Do you suppose he was A- mortified at his colleagues performance and B - felt colleague lied about him?
that's my read)

[Syl]

tops

Yeah, I'm with you on the realization hitting Libby what this was really about!

[Syl]

ghostcat

Matthews knows bupkis. He and Shuster discuss bupkis every night! And sometimes the bupkis shows up on Olberman too!

Nice bunch over there.

[JJ]

From quote of indictment in original post, Libby said:

"I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this."

And TM notes that Russert *might* have said more, like:

"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".

Which is very good point.

Both are good points.

Libby was not doing a "I heard that" type of confirmation for Russert and Russert may have expanded on Plame's status, which it is not clear was known to Libby...and Ari. And not told by Russert.

[ghostcat]

I happen to admire Russert a good deal. If he's proven to be complicit in this tour de force of journalistic/legalistic autoeroticism, I will be disappointed.

[JJ]

Or, oops, did I misread that last quote...

[clarice]

ts--I just think Dickerson was embarrassed and not happy to find himself in the middle of this, too.

[Syl]

I happen to admire Russert a good deal.

Me too.

And ::shock:: I actually like Chris Matthews. I haven't agreed with him much at all since about 2004 though.

[Syl]

I haven't agreed with him much at all since about 2004 though.

Make that 2003.

[JJ]

In fact, it could have been possible that Russert did know that Plame was in some sort of protected CIA job and did mention that to Libby, but Libby was unaware...or if he suspected Libby did not let on.

[topsecretk9]

--ts--I just think Dickerson was embarrassed and not happy to find himself in the middle of this, too.--

Well that's a triplicate embarrassment after written a "where's my subpoena" story too.

Also, couldn't have been great hearing his colleague detail the shoddiness of an article that had his byline on.

[topsecretk9]

--And ::shock:: I actually like Chris Matthew's.--

Actually I do too. He's the Joe Biden of punditry for me. 'YAH GRATE'

I fully expect Biden to where blackface tomorrow to say he's really one with the blackfolk and thinks they are swell and super clean

(think Alito hearings, "I really hate Princeton, no...I really hate Princeton" and then?....Princeton cap on in hearings next day..."have i said how much I love Princeton? I mean I really, really like Princeton"

PURE entertainment....

[JJ]

...at any rate, my bet is that we are going to hear a fuller story of the Russert/Libby conversation tomorrow.

[ghostcat]

syl (slightly OT)-

Little-known weird factoid: Chris Matthews once guest-hosted for Rush Limbaugh ... for an entire week IIRC.

[Jethro]

what's the "corrupt endeavor" at 33.? bad choice of words innit, given no secrecy laws were broken?

[clarice]

It would be a good weekend exercise to compare each count of the indictment with a summary of what the actual testimony was..

[Syl]

tops

PURE entertainment....

::grin::

BUT, he's smart too. I can actually envision him as president. I really can.

He would shock Europe! LOL

But best of all he'd REALLY confuse Iran and al Qaeda!

[MJW]

Despite the suspicious wording of Russert's denials, I still think it's wishful thinking to believe Russert will admit to knowing of "the wife's" affiliation with the CIA at the time of Libby's call -- but that doesn't stop me from wishing. What a fool the would make Fitz! If Russert does 'fess up, he'd better hope the D.C. Circuit has an expansive interpretation of Bronston.

[Syl]

Ya know, why can't America be fun anymore?

We're all sooooooo serious these days. Just laugh our enemies to death.

They HATE to be mocked. Oh how they hate it.

Let's stop advocating 'tolerance'. That's so PC. Me must start advocating a SENSE OF HUMOR.

[Syl]

MJQ

Okay..this has been a GREAT learning experience. But what case/principle is Bronston about?

[MayBee]

Yes, I have a feeling that Russert won't give Libby much, and will give the Prosecution some. I think it's possible Libby is remembering what Matthew Cooper said. Libby had never dealt with Cooper. It had been a long day, he wanted to get home to his family, and all the sudden Cooper was talking about the wife out of the blue.
So...that leaves the troubling explanation about how he didn't know "that as a fact" even when he was talking to Cooper, but I think that's just blabbering. He got times and dates wrong, and confused what he knew with what he thought he knew. My husband does that all the time, he has a very ...creative memory.

For Libby, The names were wrong and the dates were wrong.

[MJW]

Bronston is the case that established, more or less, that a truthful but misleading answer isn't perjury. The "more or less" is important: what the SCOTUS actually said was a factually truthful, but non-responsive, answer leading to a false negative inference wasn't perjury. In the case (approximately), Bronston was asked if he had a Swiss bank account. He answered, "The company had one." That was true, be he also had one. When that was discovered, he was convicted of perjury. The SC reversed, because he had not given a false answer. The fact that his answer was non-responsive, so the prosecution should have demanded a responsive answer, was significant. In the case of Russert, his answer (assuming he did know about Plame) is arguably responsive.

[Syl]

MJW

Thanks for the Bronston stuff!

Ah. The questions fitz never asked. Too many to count.

[JM Hanes]

Yeah, I think Russert doesn't look good for Libby.

Wonder if the Defense will highlight the kid glove treatment he received, maybe emphasize all the questions he was never asked? E.G. Did the prosecution ever ask you x, y, z? without asking Russert to provide any actual answers themselves.

In some ways, he's the perfect witness to use for making the point that there's a lot of this story that the jury won't be hearing, because the prosecution deliberately ignored it -- rather than trying to test the quality of Russert's memory which could easily end up proving to be considerably better than anyone else's to date. Might be more effective to suggest that there's no reason to assume Russert's memory is superior to everybody else's later on when Russert's not actually on the stand.

[MayBee]

JMH- good point (soooo good to have you back, btw).
I wonder if they could also explore how Libby behaved about it all, in an effort to show he wasn't coaching people. Did he ask you not to testify? Did he try to contact you about your testimony? Did he visit your home the night before you testified? Assuming, of course, that Libby didn't try to interfere with Russert's testimony.
It would also be interesting if they can explore at all how they went about booking Wilson on the very day his Op-Ed was published, but that may be too far afield.

[topsecretk9]

JMH

I predict they kid glove Russert too! To their advantage.

They ask if he is like Judy and has a "note driven" memory too?

What? You have no notes?

OK.
I actually think they will get in a bar battle because they will note to Walton Russert was ONLY asked about his "recollection" of a conversation and SRTIKE ME I'll be wrong, but I think walton will agree it is unfair.

What he decides I don't know but that is what I think.

[topsecretk9]

--JMH- good point (soooo good to have you back, btw).--

Isn't though? Shoo...

[clarice]

I don't know who the mystery witness is, but it would be nice if it were someone with an intimate knowledge about what nbc knew about Plame.

I think after this dreadful prosecution show, it would be dandy to begin with a knockout punch for the defense.

[JM Hanes]

Aw, shucks.:)

[clarice]

From JOM: Here's who else was on MTP on July 6, 2003 when Wilson came out of the closet.
Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times, David Broder of The Washington Post and Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2004/07/joe_wilson_with.html

[clarice]

Broder has written critically (in connection with this case) about reporters' reliance on anonymous sources.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601648.html>anon

And about the case itself.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501615.html>foolish flap

[MJW]

In a way, I don't think Russert looks so bad for Libby. The worst he can say is that he didn't say anything about Wilson's wife to Libby. That's what almost everyone expects him to say already. Anything that casts doubt on his testimony is gravy.

[Patton]

Well, no this case is really about nothing.

We now know Libby didn't leak to anyone.

Miller already knew about Plame before she talked to Libby and she has totally forgot the converstion with Libby in June.

And Cooper had the information from Dickerson before he talked to Libby.

SO LIBBY NEVER LEAKED PLAME'S IDENTITY TO ANYONE...PERIOD.

[Patton]

If anyone comprehended the testimony yesterday it showed the complete incompetence of Fitzs investigation because he wasn't willing to take on the journalists and get the truth out of them.

He's prosecting Libby because he thinks he was a leaker, but the opposite is true, he gave immunity to the actual leakers.

Fliescher told Dickerson and Dickerson told Cooper and Cooper told Libby, but Fitz didn't undercover that because he feared upsetting the press.

Its just as logical that Fliescher told Gregory (Or Armitage to Mitchell) and one of the told Russert who then told Libby.

You hav testimony that Gregory knew and you have Mitchel stating she knew in her own words.

[MJW]

Patton, as I mentioned on another thread, I hope Fleischer didn't mention Wilson's wife to Gregory and Dickerson. Fleischer was so far the most damaging witness, and that would cast serious doubts on his memory. If he misremembered the very action that caused him to seek immunity, how can anyone rely on his other memories? Especially when there's a direct parallel between him believing he said more that he said, and him believing he heard more than he heard.

[MJW]

Not only that, but if Cooper took as confirmation comments from Dickerson that Fleisher said they should look into who sent Wilson, that'd make Cooper look even more like a weasel.

[Ranger]

Patton, as I mentioned on another thread, I hope Fleischer didn't mention Wilson's wife to Gregory and Dickerson. Fleischer was so far the most damaging witness, and that would cast serious doubts on his memory. If he misremembered the very action that caused him to seek immunity, how can anyone rely on his other memories? Especially when there's a direct parallel between him believing he said more that he said, and him believing he heard more than he heard.

Posted by: MJW | February 01, 2007 at 01:38 AM

Actually, who heard what in Africa has no bearing on the validity of Ari's version of the Lunch with Libby. Ari was told what he claims he told the reporters just before he told them.

Best result for Libby is if Gregory admits Ari told him and Dickerson denies it. Then you have two reporters hearing the same thing and remembering it differently. That just adds to the impression that no one can really remember any of this with any accuracy.

My guess is that when Libby is on the stand his version is that when Ari asked about it, all Libby said was that the VP didn't send Wilson, the CIA did, and either:

a) they were still working out with CIA what to say about it so it is hush hush because they want Tenat be the fist to officially say the CIA sent Wilson.

or

b) he said there was something fishy about the trip but they didn't have all the facts yet, so it's hush hush for now.

[Tom Maguire]

i'm hoping he doesn't end up the new judge ito.

I don't think he has a problem there. He seems to be in control of this, which is quite a feat.

Patton, as I mentioned on another thread, I hope Fleischer didn't mention Wilson's wife to Gregory and Dickerson.

Gregory is hardly critical to impeaching Russert (although it does increase Russert's Fear Factor, *if* the Gregory News was news to him.

First, there is still Andrea Mitchell, who thought it wqs "widely" known (Hmm - why would she think "widely" if only she knew it? Wouldn't she be more likely to think it if Gregory reported that Ari told him and several other reporters?)

But anyway, the date for Gregory, July 11, is not great, since the NBC phone call seems to be the 10th (one might hope that the WH and NBC have phone logs and can pin down the date).

Jim E is completely correct that he made a valuable contribution to the Mitchell file. However, I would love to know what Russert article he was reading from the recent Oklahoma trip - the one Drudge linked to was just more waffles served by weasels.

[brassband]

Let's get one thing straight here --

Whoever is lying and whoever is telling the truth . . . if Fitzgerald based this indictment on a twenty-two minute, one-sided, highly-parsed interview with Russert that was supremely irresponsible.

As I understand it there were a lot of limiting conditions applicable at Russert's interview -- conditions that cannot possibly apply during trial.

May be Fitzgerald's case won't fall apart when Russert is on the stand . . . but may be it will. Either way, the way his team handled this allegedly critical witness is just plain irresponsible.

[P]

If Libby confused Russert with Cooper, wouldn't the rest of his testimony be entirely truthful..

[P]

There is actually a pattern here:

Miller thinks she heard it from Libby, but she already heard it from someone else. (I suspect State Dept)

Ari thinks she heard it from Libby, but he actually heard it from Bartlet.

Libby thinks she heard it from Russert, but he actually heard it from Cooper.

Grossman, Grenier and Smallz are completely unreliable or entirely forgetable.

Then Libby's testimony makes complete sense.

[DWPittelli]

Anyone who wants to argue about what Paragraph 32(a)(ii) in the indictment means should instead be looking at later (page 18) in the indictment, at (a selection of) Libby’s actual “perjurious” testimony, not at Fitzgerald’s characterization of it. It’s rambling and unfocused, like most oral testimony, and the punctuation is also, of course, Fitzgerald’s. I present the key portion with some quotes and commas added and some doubly stated phrases removed.

Concerning Tim Russert (~July 10, 2003)
And then he said… “did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA?” And I was a little taken aback by that... And I said, “no, I don't know that.” 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. And so I said, “no, I don't know that,” because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

To Fitzgerald, Libby is here claiming that Libby did not know about Wilson’s wife when Russert told him about it. But to me, Libby’s use of the word “intentionally” and Libby’s being “careful not to confirm it for him” show that Libby is talking about the role he was playing “at that point in time” and later (with Cooper) “in my mind.”

My interpretation requires Libby’s use of language to “frame” his lies to the press to be unclear. Specifically, I believe that when Libby says “at that point in time” or “in my mind” he is speaking of a role he was then playing with a reporter. Fitzgerald’s interpretation requires us to instead ignore that Libby added phrases about intent (bold) which make no sense at all under Fitzgerald’s interpretation.

Libby had “to be very careful not to confirm it for [Russert]” precisely because Libby says he was lying to Russert then, which would not be true if Libby’s claim were that he actually didn’t know about Wilson’s wife, and was actually telling the truth to Russert.

[Ranger]

DWPittelli,

It also supports the idea of the call being on the 10th. Libby knows that Tenant's statement is coming out on the morning of the 11th and doesn't want Russert to start pushing the story in a new direction. He wants Tenant's statement (backing up what the OVP has been saying) to be the story tomorrow (the 11th).

[TCO]

Patton (comments above):

1. If Libby leaked, it is irrelevant if the people he leaked to already knew the leak. He would be confirming it, making it more reliable, etc. Have you ever served, had a security clearance, etc.? Or are you just a little simple-minded?

2. Regardless, he is not being tried for compromising security, but for perjury and obstruction.

[Ranger]

Ok, here is the part that has always struck me as saying "as for the first time" refers to how Libby wants Russert to take his statements:

because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

which tells me he is telling the GJ that he knows what TR is telling him is true, but he needs TR not to believe he knows it.

You can not worry about confiming something if you don't remember it. Therefore, Libby shows no intention to decieve the GJ about his state of knowledge, only an inability to clearly explain what that state of knowledge was.

I suspect this is part of the 'without my notes I couldn't deconflict controdictory memories' defense I think team Libby will give the jury. He had both the partial memory of pretending to learn it for the first time (absent the pretending part) and the memory that he already knew it at the time. He just wasn't sure which memory was most accurate or even aware that they conflicted at the time and ended up telling both to the GJ.

Also works if he is confusing AM with TR, he remembered it was someone at NBC, just not exactly who.

The goal was to let Tenant and the CIA explain the situation without it looking like the OVP was sniping at them to the press.

[Ranger]

So, here is my take on Libby's state of mind during this whole thing.

Start with OVP's goals in the matter. OVP wants to challenge Wilson on the facts of his trip. As soon as they figure out who sent him (CIA) they immidiately start trying to get the CIA to work with them to counter Wilson's charges. The goal is to make CIA an equal partner, if not the lead, in the pushback.

Martin says Wilson's wife's role doesn't help them, and she is right because it makes the CIA look bad (even Grossman thought it made the trip look questionable).

Libby does not want the press to get ahold of this until CIA has a chance to get in front and deal with it. Libby's 'works at beuro' comment may even have been misdirection to Miller to keep her from looking at wife CIA connection and give OVP a little more time to work out a deal with CIA.

Since Wilson's wife is dirty laundry, best to let Tenant deal with it on his terms if he wants to. Any leak about it will look like OVP/White House is sniping behind Tenant's back while negotiating to get CIA on board with the push back.

All of the 'hush hush, don't want to confirm this' is about keeping a lid on long enough for CIA to be on board with the push back and let Tenant have the first shot at dealing with any dirty laundry.

[Other Tom]

TCO, having served, and having had the highest possible security clearances at the time, let me respond to your snot-nosed comments to Patton: the question of security clearance is utterly irrelevant to anything Patton said. No classified information was involved.

[sbw]

TCO: Or are you just a little simple-minded?

TCO, help me understand what you mean by this, what you intend by it, and why you felt it was necessary?

[TCO]

OT: You may have served, but you are not bright enough to understand logic and analogy. I did not SAY that he had compromised security. My point is that a leak is a leak regardless of if the person on the other side knew it.

In all seriousness, do you THINK?

[TCO]

I was going to put in a caveat for the the morons like OT, that would come here to clarify security lapses rather than thinking about the concept and what it teaches you. Sheesh. I gotta anticipate every bonehead misconception here before I post.

[TCO]

What a fucking drag.

[boris]

I did not SAY that he had compromised security

The question posed referred to "security clearance". If someone put a gun to your head what would your absolute best guess be that question was about. Compromised security or security clearance?

[TCO]

Sbw: what do you think? I was b eing mean, because I was angry at the boneheadness and have a mean streak and like hurting peolple. Somewhere locked inside there is also a desire to fucking promote change by rocking his world a little, so that he improves. It's all mixed up.

Can I get off the couch, now?

[boris]

I gotta anticipate every bonehead misconception here before I post.

It is true that every bonehead misconception shows up in your posts princess.

[TCO]

Boris, you are too dumb to even deal with. Patton is a half notch above. I been blowing you off...

[boris]

fucking promote change

Such language princess !!! Not very ladylike is it?

[Jane]

Not very ladylike is it?

Wow, now that's sexist!

[Other Tom]

TCO: "My point is that a leak is a leak regardless of if the person on the other side knew it."

Do I think? Certainly--I think you're more full of shit than a Christmas turkey. I simply pointed out how stupid it was, in the course of making your "point," to discuss military service or security clearances. They have absolutely nothing to do with the point you thought you were making, as you now appear to concede.

You have established yourself as a dolt. Keep digging.

[Other Tom]

"I was going to put in a caveat for the the morons like OT, that would come here to clarify security lapses rather than thinking about the concept and what it teaches you."

Those of us who have a grasp of punctuation and syntax are having a belly-laugh with that one. The poor sap TCO is out of his league here, and his impotent, frustrated rage has got the better of him.

[maryrose]

Ranger:
This is he first explanation that makes sense to me. It is the Occam's Razor clarification of what was coming down.

[maryrose]

JimE:
Did you or did you not see Andrea Mitchell on Imus? If you had you would know that she is lying through her teeth. She slipped up in her comments on that show and on Hardball.

[Sue]

What if the absence of Dickerson coincides with the mystery witness? He would have to leave the courtroom if he is going to be called as a witness.

[lurker]

1. If Libby leaked, it is irrelevant if the people he leaked to already knew the leak. He would be confirming it, making it more reliable, etc. Have you ever served, had a security clearance, etc.? Or are you just a little simple-minded?

2. Regardless, he is not being tried for compromising security, but for perjury and obstruction.

There's a world of difference between leak and confirming a leak.

Yes, I've had security clearance.

Fitz so far has not been able to prove that Libby perjured and obstructed justice beyond reasonable doubt. Shame he wasn't fair in going after Libby without going after others or NOT indict Libby at all. From what I've read so far, Fitz has no grounds to indict Libby.

[boris]

Jane,

As a title of nobility the uses of "Lady" are mainly paralleled by those of "Lord". It is thus a less formal alternative to the full title giving the specific rank, of marchioness, countess, viscountess or baroness, whether as the title of the husbands rank by right or courtesy, or as the lady's title in her own right.

Suggest princess would also be also included.

[politicaobscura]

Ignore TCO, he'll go away. He isn't bringing anything ot the table... ignore trolls. Always.

[Sue]

To Fitzgerald, Libby is here claiming that Libby did not know about Wilson’s wife when Russert told him about it.

There is a follow-up question by one of the grand jurors that needs to be addressed. I don't remember exactly what it was, but that point was clarified and I think that is where Libby is in trouble. Does anyone remember it and if so where it could be found?

[Jane]

Boris;

Next time why not say it's not very "lordlike"? That would remove the appearance of the "insult" of calling a man a woman, which sometimes goes around here.