Libby Trial - Andrea Mitchell

Ms. Mitchell's time is coming - here is lots of material and transcripts of her past efforts on this subject.

And let's recap some commentary on her detailed coverage of the Iraq/Niger/uranium story.

On June 23 she broke the State-friendly scoop that a State dissent on Iraq's nuclear aspirations had been misplaced in the NIE.

On July 6, she interviewed Joe Wilson on Meet The Press while Tim Russert was on vacation.  [And who arranged the booking?  Why, Ms. Mitchell herself called him - she had his phone number since she had tracked him down after the Pincus article on June 12.]

On July 8 she told us that CIA "operatives" had sent Joe Wilson to Niger without the knowledge of the top CIA brass.  In his July 14 column Bob Novak used "operative" to describe Ms. Plame, who he also linked to the decision to send Wilson.  Coincidence, same source, or what?  FWIW, Novak got the Plame leak from Armitage of State on July 8.

On July 20 she got laughs by going public with a bit of a snit that Richard Armitage would no longer return her phone calls.

And in late September she broke the news of the CIA criminal referral that ignited this story.

She was covering this pretty carefully and talking to the same people in State who leaked to Novak, yet never got a leak herself?  Even though she said the Wilson and wife link was "widely known"?  Even though Armitage at State had no reason to think the Plame news was confidential or classified?  Even though Armitage had also leaked it to Bob Woodward?

Whatever.  It's easy to see why, if Ms. Mitchell has not disclosed that yet, she won't disclose it now - if she admits to having received an Armitage leak, that will be his third strike, and even the ever-patient Fitzgerald may become fed up with Armitage.

As a matter of source protection, she really needs to help Russert, NBC, and Armitage by keeping quiet *IF* he is, in fact, her source - obviously I am merely speculating as to scenarios and motives here.

Or, she could blurt out that she has a source, expose Russert to perjury charges (never happen, of course), expose her source to possible perjury charges, and, uhh, move on.  Make the call!

SINCE YOU ASKED:  My prediciton is, she has a story and is sticking to it.  Let's hope the jury can't hear the snickers and laughter from the media room.

AND BACK IN REALITY:  The prosecution wants to keep out the Mitchell tapes, and the judge is leaning their way. No worries - The Decider will pardon Libby this afternoon if we don't hear from Mitchell.  (Hyperbole, folks.)

MORE:  Cathie Martin (of Cheney's press office) testified that Bill Harlow (CIA press guy) mentioned that Andrea Mitchell was calling.  Well, that is not a surprise, considering her July 8 report.

C&L has one of the Mitchell appearances on Imus.

Comments

[politicaobscura]

Of all the witnesses, Andrea will be the most fun to watch. Lots and lots of landmines for her!!!!!!

[JJ]

Ummmmm, no help from Andrea, I say.

(And since I enjoy taking the underdog's side, the odds are not tilted that way.)

[clarice]

Lead up to ruling that Wells couldn't use the tapes IN RUSSERT's cross (perhaps this will be revisited when she takes the stand. Remember she if she has emails etc to and from a variety of people named as DoS types like Armitage and Wilson et al the judge has ruled NBC will have to provide them to the defense..and there is that mysterious statement 2 weeks ago by the judge that he doesn't see how he can deny the defense her notes which he'd earlier said they couldn't get):
"W: During the week of July 6, Mitchell was on TV and reporting on Wilson, rigth?

T: Yes.

W: And Gregory was in Africa with President Bush, right?

T: Right.

W: No question in deposition about Gregory talking to Ari Fleischer

Objection. Sustained — hearsay.

W: Were you asked any question –

Walton: He's already said.

W: You said if you had known about Wilson's wife, you would have called colleagues together, right, and discussed what to do, right?

T: Right.

W: Same thing if Andrea Mitchell had information, right?

Objection. Sustained.

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

T; Yes.

W: And Gregory and Mitchell were key reporters?

T: Yes, and they never came forward.

W: Were you aware that Mitchell refused to be interviewed –

Objection. Sustained.

W: Right after Libby was indicted, do you remember having a roundtable discussion on TV?

Objection. Sidebar.

W: Do you remember roundtable disussion on Libby indictment?

T: Probably two of those — on MTP, and on CNBC

W: And on CNBC, roundtable was you, Gregory, Mitchell, and Pete Williams. Correct? "

[clarice]

From a commenter (woofie) at FR:
"Soon I think there will be another of those two week festivals on tv where the press "questions" itself about whether they really are being "honest" and whether or not they "remember" things correctly....At the end they will all throw up their hands and pronounce themselves "good" people and go back to living on their fat salaries"

FNC's newswatch writes itself.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Wilson's busy schedule! July 6, 2003:

Novak's article is OUT. And, Wilson is ON Meet the Depressed, where Russert is on vacation. And, what I don't get?

When Wilson shows up at the studio, wifey isn't sitting in the Green Room?

I'd think, when you go ON a show, rather than just being IN the audience; you enter NBC through a different door. And, there's handshakes to go around.

If nothing else, we know RUSSERT met Blech-enrode, and the horse he appeared on. By "introducing himself" to Russert as someone from a church group who got a tour. PLUS, there's video tape showing that the FIB guy was ga-ga at meeting Mr. Potato Head. With at least questions that these two guys are no longer "neutrals." So, I ask? Shouldn't the Blech-en-road guy have "sequestered himself" from this Libby case? But there he is, instead, with Bond. And, with a major Fitz witness. Hmm. Are all these people in bed together? Do they have a secret code handshake? Or do they wear "special ties," to send signals. Monica can read those!

[Jane]

Okay I've been off on assignment (looking for Russert saying "no lawyers in the GJ" - close but no cigar) and I need someone to catch me up. The Judge has ruled that Wells can't play the Mitchell tape on Imus to Russert, correct? But Andrea is still compelled to testify, correct? And the tape could come in then?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Walton must be an imbecile to not realize the relevance of the TV tapes. Russert has testified that after he read Novak's column he questioned everyone about whether they knew Wilson's wife was CIA, and no one did. Wells has clear evidence one did know, but Walton won't allow it!

[theo]

Doubtful Jane. If Mitchell is going to deny that she told Russert before July 10, judge probably will not allow Wells to call her to elicit that denial and then try to impeach her. Walton could have avoided that problem by allowing the tape to cross Russert, but the problem there is that Russert cannot really explain what Mrs. Greenspan said.

[clarice]

(swopa)
W: I just hae a few more questions. What did Eckenrose

T: The conversation.

W: What did you understand that to mean?

T: The conversation he had with me.

W: Do you recall that his request was to keep FBI questions

T: No, it was along lines of "I would appreciate it if you keep this conversation confidential."

W: (brings up FBI interview notes, apparently) Does that refresh your recollection, that you were just asked to keep questions confidential?

T: It refreshes my memory of exactly what I said to you.

W: July 27, 2004 letter to your attorney, Fitz says request is to keep confidential, but you have right to disclose publicly what happens in deposition. But you talked about it on TV.

T: I did not have a pledge of confidentiality with Mr. Fitzgerald. Only talking about substance of deposition was after indictment made it public.

W: You never asked to be relieved of confidentiality with Eckenrode.

T: No.

W: As a journalist, you believe in telling whole story

T: Yes

W: If you have a pledge of confidentiality, you can't tell whole story, you shouldn't report on story, right?

T: There are many stories I report on where there are pledges

W: If public knew you had told FBI about Libby conversation, that would have an effect on your reputation, a possible chilling effect on sources, yes?

Objection. Overruled.

T: It was a confidential conversation.

W: And you never asked to be lifted from it.

T: Right.

W: You never remember any conversation with Libby when he asked you to keep it out of record?

T: No.

W: You said that Libby was agitated

T: Yes (brief aside as to whether Libby used curse words — are hell and damn curse words?)

W: In your previous testimony to FBI and grand jury, you never said Mr. Libby used words "hell" or "damn"

T: I would include that in

W: Bad blood betwen

T: No.

W: Weren't you elated when Libby was indicted?

T: No.

Wells tries to play another Imus clip. Objection, with vigor — he's showing Imus intro, rather than just what Russert said.

Sustained. Pause while tape is fixed. It's 12:02.

[Martin]

Sullivan-the defense is free to call Mitchell herself! It's called the best evidence rule.

[clarice]

Azaghal, where are you?
Secret FBI conversation, original notes missing, conversation was hidden in false filing by NBC with court and prosecutor knew all this and kept his mouth shut.
And Libby is charges with obstruction?

I do so hope the OPR is paying attention to this.

[clarice]

Jane, that's my thought, too. He can get it in with Mitchell if he calls her. My guess is he'll begin with establishing she was covering the NIE (and leaking for the DoS)and was never questioned by the prosecution and then move into it.

[Jane]

Boy that's a big loss.

[theo]

I hope that you are right Clarice. But given the way he is ruling I have my doubts.

I think Wells may have enough with what he has. Clearly either Ari did not tell Gregory or Gregory did not tell Russert. The former puts a big hole in the prosecution case and the latter is inexplicable.

[Ranger]

I get the feeling that Wells thought he had a shot at knocking the Russert count out if he could get the Mithcell statemnts in. If he could have directly impeached Russert's primary claim about it being impossible, he might have been able to convince the judge to drop it before going into the defense presentation.

[theo]

Would have been nice to have Jane, but I think the defense can overcome it. See my post above about how Wells may have enough now.

[Rick Ballard]

Patrick,

Walton just created grounds for appeal on the two toughest charges - and put his view that it could be reversed on the record. He's not stupid and it isn't a "signal" that he thinks Libby will be convicted (no conviction, no appeal). It might just be his way of 'influencing' the final final outcome - the appellate decision on a possible negative outcome to charges that Walton may not feel should have been brought to trial.

[Martin]

Ranger-why should the defense be allowed to impeach with a videotape when the declarant is available?

[JohnH]

As far as MSM not covering what is going on in the cross (except for Apuzzo, I understand), I think that over the next few weeks the discussion of Russert's testimony and that of others will be an expanding issue in the blogosphere, followed by more and more mentions on talk radio, and finally resulting in the MSM "addressing" it as with Dan Rather etc. There are so many implications to be taken out of the testimony thus far, and that to come, that it will not die quickly, and the MSM recognition of the issue will come eventually.

One of the things that I am eager to see when the defense puts on its case is what Fitz's cross of Well's witnesses will look like. Does anyone think that there is much potential payoff in Fitz trying to impeach the defense witnesses? I see it as lose-lose for Fitz

[Jane]

So the defense rests and the rest of the day is taken up with motions etc - the jury gets dismissed til Monday - is that what we expect?

[Ranger]

Martin, you completely missed the point. Wells can't call witnesses until the defense starts its presentation. But, if he could have gotten the impechment on record before the prosecution rested, he had a decent argument for the judge tossing the Russert count and not even having to call Mitchell. Much better to get that out of the way if he could have.

[clarice]

Well, I suppose he was trying to impeach RUSSERT who claimed it was "impossible" for him to know when in fact another prosecution witness said he'd told Gregory before the Russert-Libby talk(s) and when Mitchell had said "everybody knew".

[rogera]

Drudge is featuring the Russert cross--I think it will receive appropriate notice.

[theo]

John H --

Maybe. But the MSM is way past the issue of whether Libby is guilty or not. (They just assume it.) What matters to them is how they can spin the trial to attack Cheney and Bush.

[Ranger]

I'm really waiting to see if there are any questions from the jury on this one. They could really be interesting.

[clarice]

rogera, Apuzzo uses the Russert on the Hot Seat header, too. C and Apuzzo sitting in a tree k-i-s-s-i-n-g-. LOL

[P]

I think its funny that Russert considers promising someone confidentiality
means that he can repeat to someone else everything that he said in the conversation,
and he can confirm or deny anything the other party said. He can also confirm that
the conversation took place, and when, and where and he can guarantee the
government official (FBI) asking the questions confidentiality and then make
sure he never mentions anything about the
government officials until forced to under oath. That’s rich Tim, any school of journalism would love for you to teach
a course on that.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

TM, who is the "decider?"

If the tapes of Mitchell come in or out, it doesn't matter? IMUS IS A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE? Or are you counting on the judge, here? To end this all by 5:00pm?

Public opinion will take a few months to catch up to this story. (That's what Nixon meant when he says his enemies "twist slowly in the wind.)

Libby entered the court house today, looking so happy! And, up at FREE REPUBLIC, someone posted pics of Libby and his gorgeous wife, exiting their car, and walking up the steps.

Libby had a smile on his face. Russert, caught, limping in, did not.

[hit and run]

I'm so jealous of Apuzzo.

[JohnH]

theo
regarding your point that MSM is trying to attack Cheney and Bush through the trial:

I agree. Last night on Anderson Cooper they had a panel with David Gergen and a few others saying solemnly that the real revelation of this trial was how unprecedented it was for the VP to be so intimately involved in managing the response to press criticism. Given how "ultra-secretive" and all that the Bush Whie House is.

[Barney Frank]

I'm not convinced Mitchell will be a net positive for the defense.
I think any damage done by Russerts testimony has been mitigated by the defense.
In the course of making her look stupid (for which you admittedly don't need a $500 an hour lawyer) if she is adamant that she mispoke and neither she nor Russert nor any of their colleagues knew until after Novak, he is rehabilitated.
The same with Gregory.

[Martin]

Ranger-the videotape is straight out hearsay if you're going to offer Mitchell's assertion on the tape being true to impeach Russert. I'm sure even OtherTom will agree with that.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

TM or Clarice or anyone:

This is a question from 2 threads ago:

With somewhat more difficulty Kessler’s colleague, Walter Pincus, eventually reached a deal with Fitzgerald. (His source did not release Pincus from his promise of confidentiality, but eventually revealed himself to Fitzgerald.)

Was Pincus' source Armitage?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

And from Patton, this seems rather major and I'm surprised Wells didn't hone in on it this morning:

Who ordered the code red on Russert?

Who at NBC saw the advance wire of Novaks column?

DOES MEET THE PRESS MONITOR THE ADVANCE WIRE OF NEWS ARTICLES TO HELP DECIDE WHO TO INVITE ON THE SHOW?

TIM RUSSERT CONFIRMS THEY DO MONITOR THE ADVANCE WIRES. NOVAKS ARTICLE WENT OUT ON THE ADVANCE WIRES ON THE 11TH.

"""W: How did Wilson come to appear?

T: Producer saw op-ed on advance wire, invited him to appear."""""

[Sue]

the videotape is straight out hearsay

Shoot. Why didn't the judge think of that argument?

[maryrose]

To call or not to call-that is the question...

[Ranger]

Well, Pincus did say that he didn't think the person leaking it was doing it for revenge, and that he didn't believe it. Sounds like one of Armitage's classic Columbo moments at the end of an interview. 'Oh, by the way, you may find this interesting, guess who sent Joe Wilson to Niger...' If it came from State, then it would make sense that Pincus thought it was gossip that Armitage got wrong through the grape vine. Why would someone at State know who in the CIA sent Joe?

[Sue]

I guess they took lunch at the courthouse. Neither blogger is clarifying the continued silence.

[Christopher Fotos]

I think its funny that Russert considers promising someone confidentiality means that he can repeat to someone else everything that he said in the conversation, and he can confirm or deny anything the other party said. He can also confirm that the conversation took place, and when, and where and he can guarantee the government official (FBI) asking the questions confidentiality and then make sure he never mentions anything about the government officials until forced to under oath. That’s rich Tim, any school of journalism would love for you to teach a course on that.

Well, as I said in another thread, Russert believes he has access to a special switch marked "viewer complaint" on one side and "confidential sources who must not be chilled" on the other. He can flick it to one side or the other at will. Just ask him.

[rogera]

JohnH: Anderson Cooper and David Gergen; ewww!! Gergen fails to meet even the low standards he sets for himself and Cooper is a hopeless twit. Will be interesting to see if Jay Rosen covers the performance of print journalism on his blog or CJR. I'm betting not; sunlight is not a welcome disinfectant when it comes to the seamy side of washington "journalism."

[Martin]

Sue-from what I gather from Swopa-hearsay is exactly what the government was arguing: "there is no Imus exception to the hearsay rules,"

Do you actually disagree that its hearsay, Sue? Please explain.

What was the basis for the judge's ruling anyway?

[Ranger]

Sounds like Wells might have started another pitched battle over something Russert said to Imus.

W: Weren't you elated when Libby was indicted?

T: No.

[clarice]

It could have been someone from DoS but over the years, Pincus has had a ratline from the CIA where he used to work.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Third question:

I seem to remember from a thread earlier in the week that Fitz is in the middle of another big trial in Illinois. My question is how can a Special Prosecutor still be working as an everyday prosecutor and hope to keep up with both cases?

My theory is that Fitz treated this as a run of the mill case with a run of the mill defendant and that he (Fitz) was woefully underprepared. I just don't think he realized that when you indict the Chief of Staff of the Vice President, you can't expect the case to be the same as if you are indicting some slimebag drug dealer or low level crime boss. It sounds to me as if Fitz thought for a long time that he could just call this one in and be done with it.

Does anyone else agree?

[Ranger]

Martin, if Russert discussed the comment with Mitchell afterwards, as Wells indicates he did, then it is not hearsay. I think where Wells was going was to show that Russert pressured Mitchell into retracting her statement because it conflicted with his testemony.

[Patrick (not Sullivan)]

I think it's pretty clear Wells would like to get Mitchell's statement in without putting her on the stand. My speculation is she will provide damaging testimony. No idea what it would be.

[hit and run]

Ranger:
I think where Wells was going was to show that Russert pressured Mitchell into retracting her statement because it conflicted with his testemony.

Now that would be an intriguing development if provable...

[centralcal]

Re: Andrea Mitchell

If you thought Agent Bond had attitude, she is just a rank amateur compared to Andrea.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Why can't Don Imus be called as a witness? His show. He heard it "from the horse's mouth." He doesn't have to give his own opinon. But if he's asked if he thinks she was drunk? Don't forget in Andrea Mitchell's twisted logic, she said TO IMUS: "I must have been drunk."

Don't if if Imus would then be allowed to comment on Andrea Mitchell's state of mind.

Or even how the green room works, prior for someone to enter the TV stage/studio. Because Andrea interviewed Wilson, sitting in Mr. Potato Head's chair on July 6, 2003. (He was on vacation.) Was Wilson utterly amazed to meet Mitchell ONLY WHEN he sat down and the TV cameras began to roll?

Oh. And, do TV shows have "out-takes?" Would Wells be entitled to see ALL the footage?

[theo]

I agree with Barney Frank. I think it is good enough with calling Mrs. Greenspan or Gregory.

Clarice, a bit of a quibble. Russert did not say that it was impossible for him to have known. He said it was impossible for him to have told Libby because he did not know. Proving that he MIGHT have known is not real impeachment.

[theo]

OOps -- I meant it is good enough WITHOUT calling Andrea or Gregory. There is danger in their testimony and the inferences are pretty good now.

[jwest]

Since neither MWR nor FDL has updated in quite some time, I must assume Russert has gone berserk and is holding everyone hostage.

[Jane]

It's also not hearsay if it's not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. So as long as Wells is not trying to prove that "everyone knew she was covert" but rather that Tim was aware of the statement, or for some other purpose, it should get in.

[theo]

Could be a lunch break jwest.

[clarice]

From the indomitable Sunny Day (and I love her!) the Russert Affidavit in word format:

"IN RE: SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION Case No.

(Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan)

(UNDER SEAL)

DECLARATION OF TIM RUSSERT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Tim Russert declares:

1. I submit this declaration in support of the motion to quash a subpoena directed to me by the'Office of the Special Counsel (“the Special Prosecutor”) in the above-referenced investigation. Except where otherwise stated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.

2. 1 have been a professional journalist for two decades. I am the Managing Editor and Moderator of Meet the Press and currently serve as Washington Bureau Chief of NBC News and 'chief political analyst for NBC Nightly News and the Today program; Before joining NBC,” News, I served in the executive and legislative branches of government. I was counselor in the New York Governor's office in 1983 and 1984, and special counsel in the United States Senate from 1977 to 1982.

3. I have been the moderator of Meet the Press since December 1991. For than fifty years, Meet the Press has served the public by imparting information to its viewers about our government, the public officials charged with its stewardship, and the public figures that shape national and international events. During the course of my work, at NBC generally, and on Meet the Press specifically, I have interviewed virtually every major figure in American government and international affairs, including Presidents Clinton and Bush and Vice Presidents Gore and

1 DXI 572.3

Cheney. Meet the Press is the most watched Sunday morning interview program in America and is the longest-running program iii the history of television. ' ''

4. 1 have received several awards in recognition of my accomplishments in journalism, including the Joan S. Barone Award, the Walter Cronkite Award, the Edward R, Murrow Award for Overall Excellence in Broadcast Journalism, the John Peter Zenger Award, ,and the David Brinkley Award for Excellence in Communications. I have also received thirty-two honorary doctorate degrees from colleges and universities throughout the United States, and have lectured at the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Reagan Presidential Libraries.

5. During the course of my career as a professional journalist, I have developed relationships with sources of information throughout the federal government. I communicate with these sources in a variety of settings, both formal and informal. No matter the context in which we communicate, they provide information to me based on our shared understanding that we are speaking in confidence and that I will not disclose publicly either their identities or the information they provide. Based on my years of experience in journalism and in government, I have determined that, absent such an understanding, public officials simply will not speak freely and candidly with me about the most important issues of the day. Indeed, without information provided to. Me by my sources in confidence, I would be substantially hindered in my ability to report contemporary events in an effective and meaningful manner. Even when I cannot disclose my sources' identities or the information I have received from them, the confidential relationships we have established enhance my understanding of important public events, help me to explain them to NBC's viewers, and assist me in gathering news from other, non-confidential sources.

2

DXI 572.3

6. 1 understand, on information and belief, that the Special Prosecutor is investigating the leak that disclosed to journalists, and then to the public, that Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. I further understand that, through his subpoena to me, the Special Prosecutor seeks to compel me to testify that I communicated with a specific Executive Branch official on or about July 10, 2003, and to disclose the contents of any such communications, I cannot provide such testimony without violating the understanding that I share with my sources that our communications, including the fact that we have communicated at all; will be held in confidence. As a result, I can neither confinn that I had 'any substantive communications with the public official at issue during the relevant time period nor can I describe the nature of any discussions that we may have had. I can, however, state unequivocally that I was not the recipient of a leak of Ms. Plame's identity or her status as a CIA operative.

7. I understand, on information and belief, that in the context of the Special Prosecutor's investigation, several Executive Branch officials have been asked by the President to execute a document formally “waiving” their right to claim that their communications with journalists must be held in confidence From my perspective as a journalist, the execution of such a document cannot be permitted to affect my relationship with my sources. The coercion implicit in the procurement of such a “waiver” calls into question its value as an accurate reflection of a source's actual intentions. More importantly, if such “waivers” are credited by the courts as a basis for compelling reporters to testify about their confidential relationships with their sources, I and other journalists will have increasing difficulty in establishing and maintaining such relationships with sources fearful that they too will be required to execute a “waiver.” As a result, my ability to gather and report the news will be substantially impaired.

3

DXI 572.4

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on June 4 2004

Tim Russert"

[Sue]

Martin,

From what I read at the Maine blogger's site, I inferred ::grin:: he ruled it wasn't relevant to Russert. I don't think the judge ruled it was hearsay.

[Pete]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

TM, who is the "decider?"

:)

None other than our Commander-in-chief George W Bush.

[theo]

Jane --

I disagree with you on that one. The "not offered for the truth" argument is made when it does not matter whether the statement is true, it is relevant that the person said it. Here, the fact that Mrs. Greenspan said so is of no value UNLESS it has at least some truth.

[Sue]

Andrea Mitchell has never had to swear to tell the truth in this matter. Who knows what the truth actually is.

[jwest]

“Could be a lunch break jwest.”

Oh sure, it could be. But where is the news value in that?

Theo, sometimes I get the impression you just don’t have what it takes to be a reporter.

[theo]

You are right jwest. Which is why I stuck to practicing law. Although Norman Mailer once told me (and a few hundred other people in attendance) that reporters were people who were not smart enough or tough enough to be lawyers. Could be true in general, but there are almost no lawyers who would not trade places with Russert.

[Joe]

Well what are they eating?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

How many people believed Russert, when he said he treated Libby's (1st?) call as a "complaint from a viewer?" He takes viewers calls, directly, himself? Odd.

And, given that the President wanted people to understand that he did NOT LIE in his SOTU address, how many people, today, still think Joe Wilson was "right" and the President, wrong?

The whole "team" of democraps and press, someday, are gonna become "Polish jokes," as in "how many politicians and jouralists does it take to screw in America?"

[Barney Frank]

--Could be true in general, but there are almost no lawyers who would not trade places with Russert.--

On the stand?

[hit and run]

Joe:
Well what are they eating?

Crow?

(did you set that one up on purpose? I may claim entrapment)

[theo]

Barney -- For $5 million per?

[Cecil Turner]

Interesting verbiage here:

I can, however, state unequivocally that I was not the recipient of a leak of Ms. Plame's identity or her status as a CIA operative.

Except the issue in that particular conversation was whether he was a source, not a recipient. And "Plame" might imply by name. Again with the over-precision.

[hit and run]

--Could be true in general, but there are almost no lawyers who would not trade places with Russert.--

On the stand?

Why do they call it "the stand". I mean, when Wells gets a hold of prosecution witnesses, he bends them over.

(more entrapment!)

[Dan S]

"6. 1 understand, on information and belief, that the Special Prosecutor is investigating the leak that disclosed to journalists, and then to the public, that Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA."

Was Fitz indeed investigating what this affidavit claims when this was entered into the record? It seems to me that part was over with, and in fact at this point Fitz was busy on his perjury trap "investigation."

If that is provable, wouldn't allowing this affidavit to stand be allowing a false statement? Or are we to accept that because Russert "understands" it to be so "on belief and information" it's okay, even if his belief and information are in fact based on other than fact?

Okay, this is a hypothetical at this point, but considering the charges Libby is defending against, it leapt out at me.

[jwest]

“Russert Holds Courtroom Hostage?”

(Note the question mark. It makes everything OK)

[Dan S]

Jwest,

Since Russert did not deny that to be the case, I think you're safe to run with that headline.

[Ranger]

Well, I get the feeling at this point the retired journo on the jury is going to be spending a lot of time defending his profession in deliberations. So far they have all come off as pretty dishonest.

[Walter]

Thanks for the affidavit, Clarice and Sunnyday!

I'll stand pat that it's misleading at worst and technically accurate.

IIRC, you can get cited for contempt for misleading the court while being tecnically accurate, but not perjury.

[hit and run]

Of all the witnesses, Andrea will be the most fun to watch. Lots and lots of landmines for her!!!!!!

Posted by: politicaobscura | February 08, 2007 at 08:59 AM

I vehemently disagree!

Penelope Cruz will be more fun to watch!

(yes, lunch break for me too, I promise, I just have to get a few outta my system and then it's back into the shadows)

[clarice]

Today's trivia ..(per the AP) Law and Order's Fred thompson, a Libby supporter, was at the couethouse today and sat with Libby's pressie, Barbara Comstock.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

John Podhoretz' article, today:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02082007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/trial_of_the_absurd_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm

He coins this "CRIME WITHOUT A CAUSE"

[Ranger]

Walter,

I don't think anyone accused Russert of perjury, just filing a false pleading. Even at that you get you say ot the person in court "You lied to a Federal Judge!"

[clarice]

Walter, the issue is the credibility of the witness, the integrity of the prosecution and the ethics of the prosecutor, not whether Eussert may be charges with contempt or perjury, I think. And I think TM's prior post nails it.

[jwest]

TM would be fully justified at this point to start a new thread with the headline:

“Sources Report Russert Goes Berserk – Holding Hostages”

Of course, where he got this information would be kept secret.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: BARNEY FRANK

Yes. For a $5-million guaranteed annual. Lots of vacation time. No need for briefs? They'd do it "on the stand." In the shower. And, from the rooftops. Plus, what's the down side? They've have to take complaint calls from viewers? (Cough. Cough).

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

The journalistic problem for Russert is that he's admitting he doesn't have to disclose anything to viewers. He might as well take "tips" from John "Carry"s Cambodian hat.

[Jane]

Gee, did they evacuate the Courthouse or something. It's so odd that neither blogger wrapped up.

[Dan S]

Jane,

Someone commented sotto voce, "I thought Russert bombed, didn't you?" and a provost overheard only the middle portion and the courthouse was quickly evacuated.

[clarice]

Is cross over, Jane?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Walton just created grounds for appeal on the two toughest charges - and put his view that it could be reversed on the record. He's not stupid...'

Deliberately creating grounds for appeal being smart?

Then how about this from FDL:

'Walton says he doesn't even interpret Mitchell quote as saying she knew Wilson's wife works at CIA. Wells points out that Mitchell concedes this herself in second Imus interview.'

[Dan S]

Sorry, I promised my source confidentiality. I can only relay my side of the conversation:

"No, shit!?"

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

The CLOCK! (It's important enough in football games, because sometimes one side NEEDS to stop it).

Here? We know Thursday, at the end of the day, the judge sends the jury home for the "weekend."

I do believe Russert is still on the stand.

So, this is quite a "break." Maybe, it's not lunch? Maybe, there have been filings, and the judge is at his desk, reading them?

Hey! Even Judge Walton would jump at that chance to change places with Russert! He could even put on his resume that his credentials are better. Viewers would like him more. And, they could start off with offering him even a million or so less, annually. AND, what's more? He will personally take viewers phone calls. Just like DRUDGE does. (And, that's worth a radio show, thrown into the bargain, too.)

$5,000,000 dollars for a Russert potato? NBC is over-paying by even more than the Pentagon does when it buys toilet seats.

But we're not disputing the $5,000,000 's RIGHT?

[jwest]

Why would they “evacuate the courthouse” if Russert wasn’t running through it naked threatening people with sharp end of a crutch?

[Dan S]

Patrick,

That's where his decision got really problematic for me. But the explanation that he feels this case isn't going to need any appeals begins to accrue some hope.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: JWEST

Because Russert can't run. He tripped over his dog.

[clarice]

From a poster at FR re the Russert affidavit:
" was counselor in the New York Governor's office in 1983 and 1984, and special counsel in the United States Senate from 1977 to 1982."
And yet he testifies that he doesn't know simple grand jury rules.......Oky Dokey"

[Appalled Moderate]

jwest:

That visual...Please, I just had lunch.

[dorf]

Anybody think Rus is wearing astronaut diapers?

[Walter]

Oh, I'm with y'all on the credibility front.

But it's about as fair as when (in what is still my favorite MTP moment) Russert confronted Sandy Berger during the Clinton scandals over a meeting he had with Tom Cruise over Scientology in Germany. I can still see Berger sweating as Russert tried to make him tell whether he brought it up at the next NATO meeting. I still watch MTP, hoping for another spectacular breakdown, but no luck since.

I think that Wells got more out of it that most would have.

[hit and run]

Dan S
Someone commented sotto voce, "I thought Russert bombed, didn't you?"

Well, Tom started it (3rd from last paragraph).

And I picked up on it

[clarice]

Can we start a pool on how long it takes TM to find a way to get "put on a diaper and drive 900 miles" in one of his posts?

[Dan S]

H&R,

I you releasing me from my vow of confidentiality?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

No, dorf. Because he could signal he needed a bathroom break; and the judge would accede to the request. But he'd be accompanied, I'm sure, by a sheriff.

On the other hand? When he's on the set? He does it the way Burt Reynolds once recommended, when he was in a film about EST.

[Walter]

OK, I'm going to change the oil in my car.

[dorf]

Carol: Yikes. I guess that's what interns are for at MTP.