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

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN

Yesterday, Kristinn, on Free Republic, in a comment, said, that the retired journalist, sitting on the jury, once worked for Woodward. And, was once a neighbor of Tim Russert.

I think he's also allowed to toss questions to the judge, when the appropriate time "nears."

So, wouldn't it be very suspicious if NOT ONE JUROR had a question, later today, about Russert's journalistic principals? You think what Russert said on the stand "flies?"

Ah, and on another note, you can HATE your next door neighbor, as much as like him. So sitting this guy on the jury panel may have been Fitz' oversight, and not Wells? Let FATE decide.

[hit and run]

Dan S, I did not know we had exchanged vows? But, if so, you are released seeing as how we have never consummated them.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

RE: the "900 miles in a diaper" song.

A stand is not a car.

[clarice]

From a lucianne poster (I haven't checked it yet):
Here's a link to the Imus show this morn, regarding Scooter Libby; Mary Matalin called in: (scroll down........but also take notice, tomorrow morn, Tim Russert is the scheduled guest....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3226997/

[Other Tom]

Two points, Martin: (1) the hearsay rule prohibits the use of a videotape of a conversation between two parties to prove the truth of any factual assertion made by either of the parties; (2) the best evidence rule has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the use of the videotape versus calling Mitchell herself. What correspondence courses have you been learning your law from?

[Jane]

I dunno, I'm not as buoyed by the testimony today as I was yesterday. Fox is also reporting that Russert held his own.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

If I were on that jury, I would ask: Okay so you didn't say Plame's name, just how did you refer to her?

[clarice]

From Imus:
"Fresh from his testimony in the Scooter Libby trial, we'll have NBC's Tim Russert on at 7:29am eastern. From all accounts we've heard about his first day on the stand, he squirmed a little bit.. but, held his own. We'll see what he had to say (or at least what he's able to tell us) to the jury and if he restored the honor of journalists everywhere following the less than stellar appearances of Matt Cooper and Judith Miller. We'll also see if Tim heard the I-Man's comments... in which he called Russert "a big mound of quivering, disgruntled jelly!" We'll also ask him about the growing GOP revolt in Congress over the administration's troop surge plans. Will the defection of several high profile Republican Senators have any impact on the White House? And, we'll find out how Tim REALLY feels about his NBC colleague Chris Matthews..."

Also from Imus:

Imus: "Did you tell Scooter Libby to call Tim Russert because he hates Chris Matthews?"

Mary Matalin: "I think I said Tim hates me--or Tim hates--I hate Matthews. Here's--can--let me take you inside the room, when I was at the White House..."

Imus: "Well that doesn't--do you know what you said?"

Mary Matalin: "I know exactly what I'm saying..."

Imus: "Well what did you say?"

Mary Matalin: "I don't--I don't know why I would have said that, but I would have said this, okay, I can't--All I know is this, the note that the prosecutor put up of a characterization of a conversation the prosecutor in that instance of the rest of it, mischaracterized what was in my mind. So, here's what I know was in my mind and here's how it works, and here's how I did my job, and how all these jobs have to be done. Other than you, okay, and maybe this happens to you, when anybody else who purports to be an objective analyst goes on the air and bashes your principals as they're called, and in this case it was the Vice President, then you call the Bureau Chief and you complain. In the case of Chris who purported to be on a nightly basis, an objective analyst would get on there and say things that we knew not to be true as in Cheney saw this report, the Cheney we knew, Cheney didn't know Wilson, Cheney never sent Wilson, Cheney never saw the report, and the report that did exist corroborated the agencies belief or that there was some effort by Saddam to secure yellow cake. So everything he was saying was wrong, when that is the case then it's our job, or whose ever the press guys job, to call up and complain first to the producers of the show, secondly when no response is forth-coming to the Bureau Chief, and finally in the case of Chris unfortunately who used to be a friend of mine, to the New York bosses. So, I wasn't working there at the time, I said, you should call, I don't remember saying, and I don't know why I would ever say that, because I don't know that Tim hates Chris, I think he likes Chris very much, he likes everybody over there. But, I don't think he likes and nor does any Bureau Chief ever like, when they have to take these complaint calls about their people who are on the air saying fallacious things."

Imus: "Well, why do you think he wrote down that you said that?"

Mary Matalin: "Well maybe it was shorthand--I don't know, I mean I don't think Chris does--they do--I think they have a fine relationship."

Imus: "Now have you guys--none of you can tell the truth can you, can you?."

Mary Matalin: "I'm not--I'm telling you..."

Imus: "It's insane."

Mary Matalin: "I'm telling you that..."

Imus: "It's like a disease you guys have."

NEWS QUOTE OF THE DAY #2:

Imus: "So you don't know whether you told Scooter Libby that Tim Russert hated.... Chris Matthews or not?"

Mary Matalin: "I'm telling you I would have said in any case, I don't know why I would have said that, because I don't know that to be the case, what I know to be the case, is that Tim and Chris are close...I don't know if they are close friends but they are certainly close colleagues."

Imus: "You sound like the OJ Simpson deal how I would have killed my wife."

Mary Matalin: "What Tim doesn't like is having people complain. He doesn't like listening to me any more then you do, which is my job to complain about reports on... of anybody but..."

Imus: "Do you think Scooter Libby is lying about what you said?"

Mary Matalin: "No I think Scooter is... what his notes are suggesting..."

Imus: "Do you think you are lying?"

Mary Matalin: "Would you look at the totality of this whole thing. He was calling me and saying what should we do about Chris Matthews continuing to put out this stuff that is untrue..."

Imus: "So call (Tim) Russert he hates Chris?"

Mary Matalin: "He hates the whole, like if there is bad news or bad facts being put out. I wouldn't... I don't know that... it's not a lying or unlying, it's a.... the process, that's what the process is. Let me say it categorically I do not know that, what their relationship is, I'm pretty sure that Tim does not hate Chris and I'm pretty sure that Tim does not hate anybody, Tim is not a hater."

[sbw]

rogera: 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."

It probably wouldn't be interesting in the sense that their respective perspectives on journalism have produced the authors of today's sad press. I have been repeatedly disappointed in their inability to recognize how much they miss.

What they preach and promote does not represent the journalism I practice and admire.

[Jane]

From FDL: The tape was played — it was from Oct. 28, 2005 with Russert saying "it was like Xmas eve here last night" just before the announcement of any indictments.

WOW

The Tape is in!

That could change my mood!

[Barney Frank]

theo,

Barney -- For $5 million per?

I meant it might be prudent to wait until the trial is over before trading places with Timothy. I'm sure the five mil will still be there but, you wouldn't have to look like a supercilious eel to get it.

[theo]

Jane --

DO not be so down. There are few "Perry Mason" moments in trials. The goal is not so much to destroy Russert as to create doubt.
I think Wells can argue on close that not all the prosecution witnesses can be telling the truth. Either Ari did not tell Gregory or Russert in fact knew.

Think of the defense goal -- one jury who retains a reasonable doubt.

[Other Tom]

Here you go, Martin:

"Rule 1002. Requirement of Original

"To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress."

It's known among the cognoscenti as the "best evidence rule," and for most people it's not rocket science.

[Martin]

That was an inside joke, othertom.

[clarice]

OMG--That tape has to have an impact on the jury!
Unbelievable!!

[Martin]

directed to patrick "modus podens" sullivan.

[theo]

The Mitchell tape is out but some other tape is in? What does the other tape have on it and what impact do we expect?

[Martin]

ok, Sullivan...ponens

[cathyf]

This seems like a small nitpick, and since I've not read about half the thread comments over the past week (some of us have to work, ya know!) maybe it has already been discussed & dispatched, but here goes...

One of the things I was really struck by in Libby's testimony is that he told the FBI & GJ that what he used from the alleged Russert conversation (when talking to Cooper, Miller, etc. after July 11th) was that Wilson's wife was not the answer to the question "who behested Wilson to Niger?" but the answer to the question "who told Wilson that the vice president behested him?"

I'm wondering if in fact what Russert said was that Mrs. Wilson worked in WMDs (or CP) and Russert may not have known that she was CIA. And that the further tidbit that she worked for the CIA came from Rove (that same day) who heard it from Novak. But that Libby in fact did not know/understand/appreciate the INR's story that Wilson had been suggested by his wife until he read the Novak column on July 12th.

This means that you really need to take a few more steps back when parsing Russert's denials. Maybe he is telling the truth when he says he didn't know that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in particular, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that he knew that she worked somewhere in some agency's WMD office. Given that this less-specific factoid is what Libby actually claims to have taken away from their phone call, and what he appears to have used after the phone call, I think it's a really important distinction.

[Dan S]

More rather delicious irony from the FDL liveblog:

"Fitz says, are we going to explain to the jury all the other rumors that were in the air? He think it's unfairly prejudicial."

You mean like all those news reports you put in just in case Libby read them and was reacting to them?

[Ranger]

Other tape is of Fitzmass morning. Russert on Imus apparently giddy about Libby getting indicted. Wells is trying to show Russert has it in for Libby.

[Jane]

Theo, according to FDL it's a tape of Russert celebrating when the indictments came down:

The tape was played — it was from Oct. 28, 2005 with Russert saying "it was like Xmas eve here last night" just before the announcement of any indictments.

[clarice]

Remember, earlier today Russert denied he was happy when Libby was indicted.

[theo]

Ranger --

Thanks. Frankly I do not see how helpful that tape is. If you know newspeople they love news stories. Libby indicted is a story. Libby not indicted is not. Besides, if you assume that Russert is telling the truth, why should he have any sympathy for Libby? He was told that Libby fingered him as gossiping about a potentially serious bit of information. If Russert did not do that (or even, frankly, if he did) he might well be happy that Libby is accused of lying about that.

In other words, I do not see how this tape undercuts anything that Russert said. I guess it makes Russert a bit less disinterested, but not necessarily less truthful.

[Dan S]

He's also now denying he remembers that a lot of reports in the news were predicting Libby's indictment the day before the indictments came down.

And getting handed evidence of exactly those predictions.

[topsecretk9]

--Other tape is of Fitzmass morning. Russert on Imus apparently giddy about Libby getting indicted. Wells is trying to show Russert has it in for Libby.--

Didn't Wells asked Tim earlier this morning if Russert was pleased Libby was indicted and Russert said no?

[topsecretk9]

Oh..Clarice caught that too.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Even better IF Russert is on IMUS t'marra.

Because IF Wells can call him, he can ask "were there any rules set up in advance of Russert's appearance, where you were told "you could not go?"

Ah. And, have you been following the trial? If so, how?

Ah. And, even if RUSSERT doesn't provide you with guidelines, are you inhibited from some areas? Say "listener disinterest?"

Most people don't know enough about the insider's guide to "back stage."

[Sdferr]

From TM, 1/30/07, "David Gregory, where are you?"
"Ari Fleischer testified yesterday that he leaked the Plame news to three reporters - John Dickerson, formerly of TIME and now with Slate; David Gregory of NBC; and Tamara Lipper, formerly of Newsweek and now with the FCC (I think - how many Tamara Lippers with a press background are in DC, anyway?)"

So my question is, what does Tamara Lipper have to say about what Ari Fleischer told her in the presence of J. Dickerson and D. Gregory? Something? Nothing? Wouldn't Ted Wells want to know?

[clarice]

Boy, the prosecution really researched its witnesses and prepped them for their testimony. NOT.

[topsecretk9]

DanS

And I believe Wells yesterday had Russert agree that Russert is a new hound reading everything he can get his hands on first thing in the morning.

[JM Hanes]

This Imus ruling seems like the first real setback for Wells here, more as to timing than substance, (which may explain why his argument to Walton seemed more overwrought than persuasive). Per Maine Web : :

[Wells] Says it goes to whole core of Russert’s testimony. Walton says the jury is going to have to go through a whole series of inferences to get to the point. Wells is wound up tight right now, he’s waving his arms, shifting from foot to foot. He wants this tape admitted badly. Says this is a highly embarrassing and troubling disclosure, and that NBC was caught after the indictment. Now Walton is a little short with Wells for his over-the-top statements about overriding the justice system.

Perhaps he (and Walton!) knew that getting the Imus /Mitchell material in here was a long shot. Per Maine Web :

Wells asks if he can confront Russert with her statement. Walton says no. Says maybe they can revisit if Mitchell herself can be asked.

As I read this, if Wells wants to impeach with Mitchell, he's got to do it through her own testimony (i.e. not play a tape when she's not available to be questionned by both Prosecution & Defense?).

This morning's testimony was a real anti-climax after yesterday. I suspect Wells was drawing it out because he really, really, really wanted to wrap up the week (and the Prosecution's case) with the Mitchell tap dance ringing in the jurors ears. I think Walton knew the game, and probably found Wells protestations irritating as much because they were disingenuous as anything else.

[hit and run]

Didn't Wells asked Tim earlier this morning if Russert was pleased Libby was indicted and Russert said no?

I'd almost side with theo here.

Was he personally pleased? He answers no.

Was he professionally pleased? He would answer yes.

The tape shows his professional pleasure at having a humdinger story.

(speaking as how it can be portrayed, not necessarily how it really was)

Or did Russert cut himself off from that type of claim given the testimony in the morning?

[Dan S]

swopa at fdl:

Wells says his team has looked for evidence that a Libby indictment was widely expected — he cites the NY Times front page that morning, as well as many other media reports (including morning news shows, etc.).

Fitzgerald reminds the judge of the redaction of reporters from a WH gaggle, says the frenzy in Oct. 2005 was even greater, that the excitement of newspeople that a major story is coming is much different than joy against one person's indictment out of personal animus. Fitz says, are we going to explain to the jury all the other rumors that were in the air? He think it's unfairly prejudicial.

Walton says if Russert felt Libby had used him in a lie, a jury might fairly think there was some personal bias (umm, but if he was lied about, then Russert is telling the truth, so isn't bias irrelevant?). He adds that he consulted with other judges at lunch, and they shared his opinion that the tape was acceptable to show, and then the jury can decide how appropriate the defense argument is.

W: On Oct. 27, the day before Mr. Libby indicted, the press was reporting that he would be indicted.

T: I don't recall.

W: Let me see if this refreshes your recollection. (shows Russert the defense-team research)

T: I don't recall this.

W: Do you recall appearing on the Imus show the morning of the 28th?

T: (meekly) No.

W: Recall whether NY Times reported that Libby would be indicted? (reads actual text from NYT lead paragraph)

Fitz objects: "If we're going to read it, let's read it accurately." Sidebar.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

One of the things I was really struck by in Libby's testimony is that he told the FBI & GJ that what he used from the alleged Russert conversation (when talking to Cooper, Miller, etc. after July 11th) was that Wilson's wife was not the answer to the question "who behested Wilson to Niger?" but the answer to the question "who told Wilson that the vice president behested him?"

I have been saying all along that I didn't think Russert said anything concrete about Valerie Plame, but he did say SOMETHING that set bells off for Libby that reporters were tuning into a part of the story he had not paid much attention to up to then.

I think the fact that Libby is absolutely adamant about Russert waking him up, and evidenced by Libby's next few moves regarding the story, there certainly was something that rang that bell.

[Dan S]

More from swopa:

It's 1:46.

W: Do you recall whether the Today show reported that Libby would be

T: I don't.

W: Do you remember being on the Today show yourself and discussing possible charges against Libby?

T: I don't.

W: Do you deny it?

T: I don't deny it, I just don't deny it.

W: You were covering CIA leak, right? Had reported on it before? Were head of NBC news bureau?

T: (yes to all)

W: If Ann Curry had reported this on the Today show, would you know about it, based on pattern and practice?

T: This is credited to the NY Times, so not if we didn't have the story.

W: But this was a big story, right? And Pete Williams discus

T: That morning, no.

W: This could have happened without you knowing?

T: If I'm away, or working on something else, or another big story… I don't know.

W: Remember the phrase "first time in a hundred years"?

T: No.

W: You don't remember talking about this on Today show?

T: I appear on Today show several times a week.

W: How many times do you appear on the Today show to discuss possible indictment of chief of staff of VP, in a case where you were involved — first time in your life, right?

T: Yes.

W: So you don't recall

T: No. I do recall watching (Fitzgerald) news conference and discussing it with Brian Williams. (is shown Today show transcript) I don't recall this, sorry.

W: You read NY Times every day, right? Washington Post?

T: Yes.

W: Fair to say if they had stories saying Libby was to be indicted, you would have read that?

T: Yes.

W: (shows news stories) Does this refresh your memory, is it fair to say you were aware of stories saying Libby would have been indicted?

T: I may well have been.

W: Given your personal involvement… you have no recollection of that day?

T: No, I said I remember news conf and going on air with Brian Williams

W: Don't recall Today show?

T: No.

W: Don't recall Imus show?

T: No.

Wells asks to approach the judge. Sidebar. It's 2:02.

[Ranger]

Wells is going at another memory angle here I think. He gets Russert to say he doesn't remember a lot of people talking about Libby about to get indicted. Strange, given that his testimony is key to one of the charges, and that was leaking out for weeks before the indictment came down. Don't think other reporters were probing Russert about that the day of the indictment? He is a part of one of the biggest news stories in DC that week, and he honestly doesn't remember people talking about it?

[roanoke]

Where is the ACLU to sue?

The term "Fitzmas" is so Judeo-Christian.

What about -

Fitzkwanzaa?

You have to love Liberal priorities-Fitzmas makes them happier than Christmas.

[Dan S]

Exactly, Ranger.

And now I bet he's asking to admit videos of the mentioned shows and he's gonna show Russert commenting on the story.

[Pofarmer]

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

Why was Libby's taped GJ session played for the jury?

[topsecretk9]

DanS

I thought it was interesting TR said he didn't recall being on Imus the morning of the 28th as a plain "NO" - given that he likes to moralize his answers and he has been a regular guest on Imus.

Sounds like he did recall - if he didn't he's say something like

"I don't recall the 28th specifically but I have been on Imus a number of times"

[Dan S]

roanoke,

Maybe this month of the trial will go down as "Fitzadan."

[Jane]

He is a part of one of the biggest news stories in DC that week, and he honestly doesn't remember people talking about it?

Yet he clearly remembers all that he said to the FBI - well in one conversation at least.

Where is Maine guy anyway! I demand his perspective!

[centralcal]

Clarice: Isn't it a problem that Russert is claiming that he doesn't have a memory of just about everything he participated in?

[Carol Herman]

FR: CAROL HERMAN
TO: JANE

FireDogLake is blogging. The "big break" was due to Walton calling other judges, asking for their opinions.

Yes, that's why the tape is in.

Judge Walton calling his brothers for help on his homework assignment. That sounds good to me. I always allowed that, here, with my kid. Getting feedback is good when you're facing problems you're not sure you're resolving correctly, on your own.

[roanoke]

Dan S.

So think they might be harranging about letting a clip in from The Today Show?

Not letting memory experts testify is looking more and more unfair.

[P]

I don’t think this is rocket science.

If Ari told Dickerson and Gregory something cryptic like ‘If you want to know who sent Joe Wilson to Africa
take a look at his wife’.

Then Russert says to Libby, “hey, what’s this about Joe Wilson and his wife”.

Russert wouldn’t have to have known anything about her to make that simple statement.

Libby's brain fills in the blanks even if a word isn’t said.

[Dan S]

Topsdog,

I'm thinking there may be something to that. Or he's just plumb beat down.

[Jane]

I don't think a memory expert is necessary at this point. Clearly lots and lots of people have selective memory. What it is important to remember (Heh) is that it's only criminal when Scooter Libby has it!

[topsecretk9]

DanS

I thought it was interesting TR said he didn't recall being on Imus the morning of the 28th as a plain "NO" - given that he likes to moralize his answers and he has been a regular guest on Imus.

Sounds like he did recall - if he didn't he's say something like

"I don't recall the 28th specifically but I have been on Imus a number of times"

[roanoke]

Dan S.

Maybe this month of the trial will go down as "Fitzadan."

LOL! At this rate-man are there any three month long holidays out there?

Surely the French have to have one...

[Dan S]

roanoke,

Seems to me Wells is going for a consensus among memory amateurs (and you know how the left feels about consensus as arbitrator of truth! It's a major part of reality-based philosophical underpinnings... err minings.)

Fitz would have been better off tactically allowing the experts in, after making a show of protesting, then demolishing them on cross. THAT would have hurt the defense. Instead he's bolstering the memory defense with his own witnesses.

Brilliant!

[topsecretk9]

Sorry for the double -- It was hund up here.

[Dan S]

roanoake,

Fitzkation?

[Jane]

Fitzkation?

Love it!

[hit and run]

Fitztirement

[Sue]

Unless I'm missing something, the jury hasn't seen the tape, has it?

[ghostcat]

Anal Fitzkation.

[Rick Ballard]

What Wells needs to close out today's show is Russert high fiving Mitchell as Fitz starts his flop sweat presser on a monitor in the backqround.

[Jane]

Actually I read that as Fitzation.

[djl130]

Fitzorial Day - So we can remember this forever.

[Appalled Moderate]

Given the season...first the party:

Fitzi Gras

Then 40 days of reflection, contrition, and penance:

Fizt

[Dan S]

Jane,

I really really wanted the K for the conflation with fisk (along with the sound from vacation) :P

And don't they get, like, 8 weeks or something in France these days? It's hard to keep track.

[PaulL]

That Mary Matalin transcript from Imus is hilarious. Does everyone who appears on his show automatically start babbling nonsensical lies? Matalin has had vast experience with the media and nonetheless is this bad?!

[clarice]

I love a good trial and a great defense lawyer..(Toqueville said Americans do love trials, you know, and he understood us so well and his observations stand to this day.)

[Tom Maguire]

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.

Jiminy - does anyone think that excludes Andrea telling him that Wilson's wife may be at the CIA?

Andrea, as a fellow reporter, can hardly "leak" anything; and the over-specificity of the denial covers the rest.

This never ends with Russert.

[Dan S]

AM,

Nice choice of holiday... except it's Christian. We were avoiding Christian references for the sake of the left. :)

[roanoke]

roanoake,

Fitzkation?

Posted by: Dan S | February 08, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Fitzkation?

Love it!

Posted by: Jane | February 08, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Fitztirement

Posted by: hit and run | February 08, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Unless I'm missing something, the jury hasn't seen the tape, has it?

Posted by: Sue | February 08, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Anal Fitzkation.

Posted by: ghostcat | February 08, 2007 at 11:17 AM

ROFL! Gad I can't keep up.

Let's just get it over with and call France-Fitznation-it'll make the Wilsons feel more welcomed.

[ghostcat]

PaulL -

Imus can be very disarming ... and packs a .357 Magnum to prove it.

[Dan S]

Clarice,

De Toqueville sure beats the dickens out of, err, Dickens on that count. But I bet he'd feel we've strayed more than a wee bit today from when he was here. Though probably not as much as some of us think.

[Great Banana]

Whatever happened to the Wilson's civil case, anyway?

[Pofarmer]

Given that this less-specific factoid is what Libby actually claims to have taken away from their phone call, and what he appears to have used after the phone call, I think it's a really important distinction.

Yeah, but Russert is trying to claim that absolutely nothing was said. That's a little different.

Why can't Timbo come clean?

[clarice]

TM, no wonder I once thought you were a lawyer--most people never read with such attention to detail,

[Ranger]

W: (replays tape) Do you remember who was Santa Claus?

Wells is trying to put Russert right in bed with the prosecution. No bias there.

[Dan S]

TM,

I agree. He's either lying through his overspecificity, or he's got a really nasty tic there that will only stop when it's beaten out of him temporarily.

[P]

Good question by a juror:

Are you covering for anyone else today, by not revealing a confidential conversation, the same as you did for Agent Ekenrode?

[smh10]

Lance is back up at Maine Web Report.

[Dan S]

from Maine:

Ok back with Wells on Russert.
Russert with Couric on Today, Wells reading transcript.
“It’s huge Katie, this is the first time in 130 years that a White House official will come under indictment.”
Tape of Russert on Imus- “It’s like Christmas Eve here.”
Wells drawing the picture of what it was like the day of Libby’s indictment. Russert is saying he doesn’t remember going on Imus that day.
Russert is playing his best Scooter Libby here. He doesn’t remember saying this, he was busy, a lot going on,etc.
Russert doesn’t know what he was referring to when he made the Christmas Eve quote - Santa Claus coming tomorrow, what’s going to be under the tree?
Wells - now do you remember who was Santa Claus?
Russert doesn’t recall what was going on. Doesn’t understand what was meant by this.
(Fuzz Conference)
—-

[clarice]

P--you made that up , didn't you?

[Ranger]

Would be funny as hell if the whole Fitzmass thing comes back to bite the left in the ass on Russert's testemony.

[Sue]

P--you made that up , didn't you?

Yeah. The judge only asks the questions right before the witness is excused. Russert is still on cross.

[Dan S]

swopa:

Now he plays the Imus tape, with "like Christmas eve" line.

W: That is from the morning of Oct. 28th. Do you have a recollection of that?

T: No, I don't.

W: Do you recall what you meant by Xmas eve?

T: Don't remember specifically saying that, but a lot of times for news stories, there's a lot of anticipation, like the Bush-Gore court decision

W: But do you remember what you referring to?

T: Not sure, there's laughter at beginning of tape

W: (replays tape) Do you remember who was Santa Claus?

T: No. Not sure what was meant by "last night."

Another sidebar. Now they've excused the jury briefly, so they can replay the full tape for Russert's benefit. It's 2:20.

[clarice]

Lots of people are getting bit on the hindend and more will be before this is over.

[cathyf]

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.

Jiminy - does anyone think that excludes Andrea telling him that Wilson's wife may be at the CIA?

Take another step back -- it doesn't exclude Andrea telling him that Wilson's wife works in WMDs, with no mention of CIA at all.

(It looks to me like the only people who were yelling about Val being CIA, dammit! were the State Department. To everybody else, the interesting factoid was that she was somewhere in the government's vast counterproliferation bureaucracy. Judy Miller just assumed she worked for the INR, a Bureau of the State Department. One of those, "all those incompetent bozos look alike to me" thingys.)

[vnjagvet]

On final argument, Wells is going to make a big deal of Russert's selective steel trap memory.

He doesn't remember announcing what he pronounces "historic" events, but remembers that a snippet of ambiguous information he allegedly conveyed in a phone call from Libby was "impossible".

On this selective memory you convict a man of perjury and obstruction?

It is almost incredible as a matter of law in my opinion.

[Barney Frank]

--Matalin has had vast experience with the media and nonetheless is this bad?!--

Yeah, she makes Cooper and Miller sound lucid.
Good thing Libby's fate doesn't hang on her testimony.

[roanoke]

Well Cecil made a good point about Russert knowing how to parse.

On close Wells needs to hammer home that Russert is an Educated Equivocator.

I keep forgetting that Russert was a lawyer and that he knows what he is doing when he gives evasive answers.

[clarice]

Bet there's a reference to Fitz as Santa on that tape. Any takers?

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: DAN S

RE: Elizabeth Loftus. Since you said experts, I take this to mean plural. And, not just a rejection of Robert Bjork.

It seems in some other case Elizabeth Loftus got dismembered by a nasty cross done by Fitz. Bad blood not only boils, it's something Wells is well-aware of, too. (He could prep his experts better. And, Fitz would look awful with the "Martha Stewart" type cross ... that only angers jurors.)

If this trial continues? I think the judge said he'd re-visit the experts. (Or, like today? He can call other judges; to garner their opinions. He seems open minded in how he regards the views of other jduges.) Bet he doesn't have to tell you whom he called!

As to Imus, Imus gets more viewers than RUSSERT. Tomorrow's "guest?" Good for ratings. And, perhaps, and "aid" to Russert so he can rehabilitate himself?

Don't forget, Imus got Andrea Mitchell to admit ON AIR, that her "everybody knows it" claim, came about because she was drunk.

Bet Imus doesn't take crap from "guests." No matter who.

[clarice]

To NBC:"Oh waud some god the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us"

Or from me to the jury"Get it now?"

[roanoke]

W:Do you remember who was Santa Claus?

What the hell?

Do you want to hazard a guess as to who played Santa Claus?

You don't think Russert forgot that he was Santa Claus?

[Dan S]

roanoke,

And he also does it from the opposite end on his show.

I'm reverting to my original opinion that he's doing it deliberately. I was trying to be generous with my suggestion it was a verbal tic, but the evidence for it being something conscious is increasing.

What he's actually avoiding with it's use is open, but I'd put probability that there's some there there above 50% now.

[Dan S]

roanoke...

I'm voting it was Fitz. But Russert WOULD be a shocker.

[Jane]

It is almost incredible as a matter of law in my opinion.

That should be codified!

[roanoke]

Never mind-

I misunderstood-

clarice- Fitz as Santa Claus is a much better bet.

[Martin]

Your constant over-reading of Russert is your fault, not his. He said under oath it was "impossible" for him to have told Libby since he didn't know it. That's pretty non-vague.

Is he lying. Could be. But bring evidence to impeach him or drop it already.

[Sue]

Whadda ya wanna bet Russert doesn't make the Imus show in the morning? I can't imagine he would risk saying something that was inconsistent with his trial testimony before the trial wraps up.

[centralcal]

Dan S: I have always thought there was some there there, way above 50%

[clarice]

Is there a rule covering withdrawing bets? I don't think so,roanoke.

[Jane]

Well I don't know how it sounds to the jury, but the man sounds like a fool as he is being transcribed.