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.
Anna Nicole Smith has died.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 08, 2007 at 03:49 PM
Carol, from way up the thread, when you are speculating on how Imus would treat Russert if he shows tomorrow:
Imus is fairly deferential to Russert, almost more than he is to just about anyone else. I think he likes him and respects him. Whereas he thinks - or thought in the past - very openly, that Chris Matthews is a big goon. Though he may like him more now that he and Chris are completely on the same side against the Iraq War.
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 08, 2007 at 03:50 PM
That is very tragic news, it looks like she may have committed suicide. She was a mess for sure, but this is not what anyone would have wanted for her.
Posted by: Enlightened | February 08, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Sheppard Smith ranks among the dumbest lights on cable news.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | February 08, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Amen, Florence. But what he reads is what his staff produces, and especially given his low wattage, they should get him smarter staff.
Posted by: clarice | February 08, 2007 at 03:55 PM
New Thread
Caution: the moving walkway is coming to an end.
Please watch your step.
Posted by: Thread Herder | February 08, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Heh, he's high "whatage?" though.
Shep, got it?
What?
Posted by: Dan S | February 08, 2007 at 03:57 PM
--Anna Nicole Smith has died.--
It's the shocking not shocking story. What a tragic life - she and her son dead within months with a brand new baby left alone.
Very sad.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 08, 2007 at 03:58 PM
I have been wondering about that last question from Wells. Is he stressing that because he wants the jury to spend the weekend remembering that Libby did not leak anything to Russert?? Since the whole brouhaha is about supposed leaking to reporters, that would be a beneficial statement for the Libby side. Either that or is he trying to set up for some defense witness to come? Don't see what that could be that would help Libby, so I think the former explanation makes sense.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | February 08, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Clarice:
Charlie can't post and some are seeing blue again
FREE CHARLIE!!!
FREE CHARLIE!!!
FREE CHARLIE!!!
Hey, where's Syl?!?!!!???!!!
Posted by: hit and run | February 08, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Hmmmm. The same day Russert's embarrassing cross would be fodder for the 24 hour news networks and then, all of a sudden, a tabloid queen dies? I want an immediate accounting of all of Russert's interns!
Posted by: SaveFarris | February 08, 2007 at 04:02 PM
clarice,
--How little you remember..and Wells will remind us at closing. The FBI summary of the earliest Russert comments (original notes mysteriously missing) is that it was possible Ms Wilson's name came up in those conversations..It's only now that he says it would have been "impossible" and then Wells will play with the jesuitical parsing.--
Not sure if this was to me or theo, but it sounded like a misread of what I said. In fact it's pretty much exactly what i did say.
If your post was to Theo then please disregard.
Assuming anyone comes back here after the grim threadherder has this way come.
Posted by: Barney Frank | February 08, 2007 at 04:03 PM
In other news, if anyone has stock in TrimSpa, I'd sell right about ... now!
Posted by: SaveFarris | February 08, 2007 at 04:03 PM
It appears that Russert has repeatedly and consistently denied telling Libby the first, second and fourth of those. Except that we just spent 8 hours listening to Libby's grand jury testmony where he claimed that Russert told him #3...
Didn't know what? That Wilson's wife was named "Plame"? That Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? The Wilson's wife worked somewhere in the counterproliferation bureaucracy? That Wilson's wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger?Posted by: cathyf | February 08, 2007 at 04:16 PM
--Either that or is he trying to set up for some defense witness to come?--
Remember, don't ask unless you the answer? I suspect Well's did know what answer Russert would give(as he already had said similar) and would like that to be that last thing said.
Maine guy described Well's as pretty heavy handed today (frustrated even) . I don't know, but I don't think Wells "does" aggressive and frustrated unless he wants to.
I think he wanted to make a strong impression of Russerts testimony- hammering Russert. Imagine during defense - an email or Andrea or Gregory contradicts TR in some major way - the jury is left thinking no wonder Wells was so aggressive and they will definitely remember the exchange.
He did a variation of that yesterday. Started out aggressive - Tim "unflappable" - Well's appears heavy handed, not getting anywhere...after lunch? Boom.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 08, 2007 at 04:16 PM
BF, It was just a cross post--By the time I typed up all those anti spam thingies you'd already caught it--It was a response to a prior post.
Posted by: clarice | February 08, 2007 at 04:20 PM
"That's why he gets paid the big bucks!"
No, Martin, he gets paid the big bucks for knowing stuff like the Best Evidence Rule.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 08, 2007 at 04:46 PM
theo
Russert had EVERY reason to lie about the conversation. If he admitted asking about Wilson's wife, he would be asked to reveal how he found out about her.
This would involve either betraying a colleague, (who like Miller might have to do jail time to avoid revealing a source) or doing some time himself.
Either could terminate his career.
Posted by: Daniel | February 08, 2007 at 05:31 PM
Well it doesn't look like the judge is buying the Martin angle, too many "inferences" for his taste.
I don't see it as too difficult.
Libby says Russert said "all the reporters"
Mitchell said "all the reporters"
Mitchell works for Russert.
Russert could have heard that from Mitchell.
What are the chances Libby picked Russert out of the blue, a person who oversaw Mitchell?
Posted by: Javani | February 08, 2007 at 05:32 PM
"What are the chances Libby picked Russert out of the blue, a person who oversaw Mitchell?"
Javani,
100%! After all, Rove has NSA tapping all their conversations so he can coordinate responses, right?
Posted by: Dan S | February 08, 2007 at 05:42 PM
it appears vnjagvet is still smarting from losing to the kids from the jesuit school's debate team
Posted by: kepa poalima | February 08, 2007 at 05:50 PM
I meant "Mitchell angle" above
Sorry Martin!
Posted by: Javani | February 08, 2007 at 06:05 PM
For all the money it costs to fund our government, and all the money it costs to train FBI agents, and others to take notes, it would seem to me that it would be time to use tape recorders/video recorders to get the statements correct.
What bothers me is that FBI agents assigned to prosecutors, such as Fitz, know he wants someone to prosecute, and maybe, just maybe, "shade" what they write down. Think about what Russert said....he did not even recognize his own statements. Could it be that they were "embellished?"
Posted by: Jim | February 08, 2007 at 07:51 PM
Clarice, check Instapundit for how to fix your Dell WiFi. It is a Windows Update problem with an easy fix.
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 08, 2007 at 09:45 PM
So simple the cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold is.
Posted by: cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold | January 07, 2009 at 04:49 AM
When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!
Posted by: LOTRO Gold | January 14, 2009 at 04:13 AM