Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« What Is Russert's Game (And Is Fitzgerald Helping Him Play It?) | Main | Notes From Two Trials (I Guess) »

February 08, 2007

Comments

Dan S

Carol,

I wasn't meaning ANY specific experts, I was just addressing his choice in tactics. He clearly didn't expect this dismembering of his witnesses on memory grounds, but he should have. Allowing in expert witnesses, might well have mitigated the ferocity and set up, in effect, nice straw men for him to knock down for the benefit of the jury.

Instead his witnesses look like straw men and they are all merrily burning away in the same fashion he'd hoped to burn Libby based on his memory.

jwest

Jack Bauer is leaning over speaking to Wells saying “just give me 5 minutes alone with this guy”.

Great Banana

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

That's pretty much all there has been is evidence impeaching TR. Does anyone now believe that he is being completely truthful and forthcoming about anything? I certainly don't, and doubt very much the jury does.

clarice

I don't think he'll show or if he does he'll do it only if Imus keeps it off his testimony and I don't think Imus would do that.

clarice

I don't think he'll show or if he does he'll do it only if Imus keeps it off his testimony and I don't think Imus would do that.

danking70

I'm more interested in Mitchell's notes.

Even the judge had comments.

roanoke

Dan S.

What he's actually avoiding with it's use is open

That could be the five million dollar question.

Rick Ballard

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

Vnjagvet,

I'm working my way through Libby's gj testimony and it is clear that Fitz could deliver an indictment of Mr. Hamon Rye if he so wished. Fitz was going big case with the gj and had a hook in their lips from the start.

I don't understand at all why Libby didn't give up the job and take the 5th - Fitz could not have been more clear about the railroad he was building.

topsecretk9

2:34
Fitzgerald questioning Russert now. Asks him if took pleasure in Libby’s indictment. Russert said no, I don’t take pleasure in being here right now.
Asks Russert if he read the indictment. Russert stutters, saus he did.
Do you recall anything about reading the indictment?
Yes I remember reading things that I supposedly said.
Did you have any reaction?
Yes I didn’t recognize many of those things.
Fitzgerald done, Walton asks if there are any jury questions.
Fuzz conference.

This hilarious.

Jane

Fitzgerald questioning Russert now. Asks him if took pleasure in Libby’s indictment. Russert said no, I don’t take pleasure in being here right now.

Asks Russert if he read the indictment. Russert stutters, saus he did.

Do you recall anything about reading the indictment?

Yes I remember reading things that I supposedly said.

Did you have any reaction?

Yes I didn’t recognize many of those things.
Fitzgerald done, Walton asks if there are any jury questions.


So is he saying he has a bad memory, or that he didn't say that stuff?

Dan S

Jane,

Yes, and we have to remember Swopa doesn't like Russert, so there is SOME bias at work. Not a lot from Lance on this so far, he was MIA at lunch and missed some.

roanoke

clarice

Well there's this thing called "insurance"...heh.

Sue

Fitz is doing redirect. Damn...no proof of 2nd phone call.

topsecretk9

Get out of my head Jane!

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: SUE

RE: BET ON RUSSERT SHOWING UP T'MARRA ON IMUS


Better than 50/50! Here, Wells is ripping Russert a new a-hole. If he decides to cancel t'marra? What do YOU think Imus would THEN talk about, huh? You think he calls us someone else? Or he just helps RUSSERT's coffin get tighter closed?

Nor, if the appearance happens, would IMUS let Russert drift off with "quibbles." Later? Russert could claim he wasn't on Imus under oath. And, then the two would go out "WHAT ARE YOU HIDE-ING." It's Imus' mike!

Dan S

Here's an aside by Lance before that 2:34 update:

To take a few steps back, I wanted to comment on the Andrea Mitchell/ Imus appearance. She sounded ridiculous, really. She was joking with Imus, ‘I have no idea what I was saying..” “I wish I knew what the heck I was saying”, “I must have been drunk”. These are not the statements of a credible person. These appear to be the remarks of a person who has made a significant mistake at least, but more importantly they seem plausibly the statements of a person who is attempting to change the reality of what she stated before, now that the heat was on.

Russert is feeding into this perspective now. He is saying he has no recollection whatsoever of being on the Imus show on this day he made the ‘Christmas Eve’ statement. At the very least he is giving credibility to the idea that Libby forgot everything. My opinion is that neither Libby nor Russert are credible with these statements. IF they are being truthful, 1) Our country is in a sad state of affairs if someone with near-amnesiatic fits like Libby has anything to do with our national security apparatus, and 2) Our country is in sad shape if the Foreign Affairs Correspondent and Washington Bureau Chief of NBC news both can’t remember such important details as the ones they are saying they forgot here.

Sue

F: What did you think of those things.

T: That they weren't true.

F: No further questions.

Swopa had a different take on what Tim said.

roanoke

danking70-

Mitchell's notes -I read somewhere that they were hard to decipher-so she'd have to give her translation of them to the court.

I don't know if Wells can prove that they are relevant though.

Fitz doesn't want Mitchell to testify.

Jane

Get out of my head Jane!

Ditto

Wasn't that weird!

Dan S

Swopa: (Fitz wins the Santa pool)

Before they bring the jury back in, Walton asks Fitz how long his redirect will be. Fitz says, "It'll be short."

W: Do you have a recollection of what you just saw?

T: I believe that "surprises" refers to a piece Pete Williams had done the night before — I just remember that he said th

W: Do you recollect

T: Referring to surprises

W: And Santa Claus?

T: A significant news day

W: Presents under the tree?

T: No, sir.

W: And possibility of Mr. Fitzgerald being Santa Claus?

T (bewildered) No.

W: You look very happy in the picture.

T: It's a still picture.

Wells says something about it being a nice picture and sits down. Fitzgerald gets up for re-direct.

Fitz: Did you take joy in Mr. Libby's indictment?

T: No and I don't take pleasure in being here.

F: Which is bigger news, possible indictment or actual indictment?

T: Actual indictment.

F: What do you remember personally from October 28, 2005?

T: Press conference was a network interrupt, which was significant — and then hearing my name, which was jolting. And then Brian Williams talking me about the case and asking me to explain my role, which I did. First time in my life I'd heard my name spoken by a prosecutor.

F: Any chance Xmas and surprises was personal joy at seeing Libby indicted?

T: Absolutely not.

F: Remember reading anything that day?

T: Possibly news articles.

F: Did you read indictment?

T: Yes, I think it was released after the news conference.

F: What did you read?

T: Parts invoving things I was claimed to have said.

F: What did you think of those things.

T: That they weren't true.

F: No further questions.

centralcal

Next up is juror questions. I sure hope they have some good ones.

centralcal

Next up is juror questions. I sure hope they have some good ones.

bmcburney

I suppose it would not be much of a surprise to Republican politicians and their aides that the press generally favors the Democrats. I assume Republicans in Washington more or less take it for granted that someone like Gregory or Russert is going to accept the Democratic spin on the news events of the day and resist their own. Fine. If its not fair, at least its no surpise.

But Scott Gregory either received the leak from Ari or he didn't and, if he did, he either told Russert or he didn't. If the story told by Russert and Ari in court is Gregory's story as well, Gregory's failure to make the facts known at some point during the past several years seems like a betrayal of his obligations to public and to NBC. This kind of thing goes beyond mere spin into the area of actually supressing information. [As has already been pointed out, Russert is in a similar position. He knew he talked to the FBI and knew he gave up Libby immediately in that conversation. Nevertheless he went through a whole Kabuki dance pretending to try to avoid giving testimony. Who was he fooling? Only the public and, maybe, the sources he will give up the next time the FBI calls.]

And if Gregory did not betray both the public and NBC News by supressing information of intense public interest, his actions are REALLY creepy. If he did not supress the news before he doing something very similar to supressing evidence now. Does Scott Gregory hate Republicans so much that he is willing to see one to prision based on testimony which he knows to be false? If you are a Republican in Washington do you take calls from Scott Gregory? From Tim Russert?

Martin

No-she could have been lying straight out to beef up her insider status-Dan S.

Remember Cliff May-he said Plame was common knowledge in his Washington bigwig circles.

He must have run away from that pretty quick too, or certainly the defense would be calling him as a witness, right?

topsecretk9

--
T: Yes, I think it was released after the news conference.

F: What did you read?

T: Parts invoving things I was claimed to have said.

F: What did you think of those things.

T: That they weren't true.

F: No further questions.--


See

clarice

Well, Lance ought work in the WH for a while and then report back months later what trivia occurred in a series of passing conversations months earlier.
For the record, I make it a point to forget gossip as soon as I hear it because I'm never sure I have the facts right before passing it on.

clarice

Well put BMCBurney

Dan S

Topsdog,

That they weren't true HOW? Interesting.

That they weren't what he said ("he was claimed to have said them"), or that what was "involving those things" wasn't true?

Glad he cleared that up. (But this may again be Swopa's less than verbatim transcription.)

maryrose

The blog is blue again-interesting how that happened when Fitz started his redirect questions.
jwest:
Your comments have been HIlarious today.
Russert is unbelievably compromised by his dishonest answers to Wells' questions. When something big like this happens you remember everything down to the most miniscule detail. Russert's testimony is shameful today. This is not what the Jesuit priests taught him while he was growing up.

JJ

F: What did you think of those things.

T: That they weren't true.

F: No further questions.

Swopa had a different take on what Tim said.

Yes, he certainly did.

hit and run

tops:
Get out of my head Jane!


Get in mine Jane!

clarice

Yes, Dan S after that powerful cross the redirect did nothing and it would be good to have a transcript to see if Fitz really left is that ambiguous.

JJ

Wells got moderately burnt by Russert.

But Russert's responses burnt he himself.

hit and run

maryrose:
The blog is blue again-interesting how that happened when Fitz started his redirect questions.


Hmmm, that is interesting, I saw that too briefly. But just to be on the safe side, I'm going up top to hit an ad or take a quiz or something for Tom.

Dan S

Heh, a thesis project for someone:

7 Types of Ambiguity and the Testimony of Tim Russert in the Libby Trial

Sara (Squiggler)

I'm like you Clarice, I just don't want to clutter up my mind with mindless drivel and gossip. My d-i-l, however, is the exact opposite. She will make a federal case out of something I wouldn't even notice. I, personally, have no interest in things that don't affect me or my loved ones directly. My d-i-l can give you the dirt on everyone on the street, either factual or her version based on assumptions, whereas I'm the neighbor who would never notice a strange car or a stranger around if asked.

I think I got this way because of a nosey neighbor we had when I was growing up. You could never come home and not see her front curtains move ever so slightly as she watched everything and everyone. Gave me the creeps as a teen.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN

Two more hours to go?

How do the jurors prepare questions? With a break? So they can write them down?

Is Mitchell really out? Or did the judge just postpone his decision?

Ditto on expert testimony. Didn't he say "it could be revisted again, later?"

Is it possible the jurors, when they're released to go home, go home with the "X-Mas" tape burned in their minds?

As to Russert being worth $5,000,000 to NBC, ahead. I'm reminded that CBS made the decision to empty Dan Rather of his seat. Not right away. But what did it take in terms of "career time?"

Is SWOPA really that mad at Russert? OR WOULD HE PREFER NBC take a better look at Arianna Huffington, to "fill the MTP" show's hosting role?

She'd take that job for less than $5,000,000 annually, too. But she wouldn't take viewer complaint phone calls.

I wonder if NBC's Shapiro isn't being flooded with resumes, now? Is "timing" everything? And, not just to Fred Astaire!

Florence Schmieg

??Scott Gregory?? Do you mean David Gregory?

maryrose

H&R;
It's back to normal now. I have to believe that like all the other witnesses Russert has failed to meet the minimum standard of helping Fitz in the slightest. This really is a Seinfeld case and a worse travesty than even I had imagined.

Martin

"Wells: Mr. Russert, you have no recollection of Mr. Libby telling you any information about Ms. Wilson?

T: No.

Wells: Thank you."

That's why he gets paid the big bucks!

vnjagvet

Don't forget that Russert's entire education was in the Jesuit system.

Florence Schmieg

Also, Is Russert saying that the indictment contained stuff he didn't actually say?? Yet the prosecutor is the one asking that question?? What a twilight zone all of this is.

War, terrorism, disease, natural disasters, and...they spend time on this crud. I am so disgusted.

Dan S

vnjagvet...

And they are known for promulgating (within Christianity) the philosophy of "end justifies the means."

clarice

vnjagvet, I think that's Fitz' background, too.

Ranger

I'd say these questions show the jurors are a little concerned about Russerts ability to remember things:

W: What were circumstances of call to Buffalo News reporter?

T: (explains Fazio-Clinton debate, what reporter said, what he complained about. Says he then sent a letter to that effect, and paper printed clarification.)

W: Remember when you called reporter? How long it lasted, etc?

T: I don't. Remember letter more than phone call.

Walter

verbal flourishes, duck & dive responses...

Not that he made his old teachers happy, but not too far from Jesuitical form.

Now my grade-school nun, she went straight for the knuckle truth.

Sara (Squiggler)

Don't forget that Russert's entire education was in the Jesuit system.

I'm not sure what the significance is to this other than to say he can lie all he wants as long as he confesses and does the appropriate number of Hail Marys as penance.

Ranger

And these seem to show a little concern over preferential treatment and co-ordination with the prosectution:

W: During deposition, were you given a list of questions ahead of time?

T: No.

W: Any script you were given?

T: No.

W: Did you approve or ban any questions in advance?

T: No, I answered what I was asked.

Jim E.

Does Fitz get any points with the jury for being brief with his witnesses? With the exception of the GJ tapes (a rather big exception, I'll admit), he seems to want to be as short as possible with his questions. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the defense has the witnesses on longer than the prosecution.

Setting aside the content and quality of the direct and cross, I wonder if the jury is annoyed with the defense team. Of course, if they think the defense team is landing their punches, they may find the cross interesting.

But is there any chance that the defense team's thoroughness can backfire if the jury is bored, or if they think the defense team is being unfairly picky with their questions?

(I ask this full well knowing that Fitz is a horribly corrupt prosecutor and that Wells is the embodiment of all that is good and holy with defense attorneys. It just seems that each side has their own clock management style, and I wonder if that can have any effect on winning over the jury on a personal level.)

vnjagvet

They are also known for splitting hairs and counting angels on the head of a pin.

You don't want to get in a parsing contest with a smart Jesuit.

Kinda like getting in a p**ssing contest with a skunk.

clarice

They just heard 8 hours of grilling of Libby in the grand jury--not his lawyer's office and with no lawyer present. I suppose 22 minutes is a contrast.

Ranger

Jim E.,

I would say that the questions the jurors asked of Russert indicate that they were not bored and paid pretty close attention to what Wells was asking. Looks like a lot of his stuff stuck with the jury from yesterday.

clarice

My comment relates to the last jury questions on preferential treatment.

Walter

"...he can lie all he wants as long as he confesses and does the appropriate number of Hail Marys as penance."

Um, not exactly. You may have missed a fine point here or there in Canon Law.

But I'll drop it if you will.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Here's the paste from SWOPA

Walton reminds jurors that Plame's status as covert is not under consideration here, and they are not to speculate about it. Then he reads the questions

Walton (W): Had there been any discussions before Novak article of Wilson's wife

Tim Russert (T): No.

W: After his article was published?

T: Yes.

W: During deposition, were you given a list of questions ahead of time?

T: No.

W: Any script you were given?

T: No.

W: Did you approve or ban any questions in advance?

T: No, I answered what I was asked.

W: Did you relate any claims by Mr. Libby about Wilson's wife to Shapiro? (on July 8th, apparently)

T: Only remember talking to him about Chris Mathews.

W: What were circumstances of call to Buffalo News reporter?

T: (explains Fazio-Clinton debate, what reporter said, what he complained about. Says he then sent a letter to that effect, and paper printed clarification.)

W: Remember when you called reporter? How long it lasted, etc?

T: I don't. Remember letter more than phone call.

W: (to defense) Any follow-up questions?

Wells: Mr. Russert, you have no recollection of Mr. Libby telling you any information about Ms. Wilson?

T: No.

Wells: Thank you.

roanoke

vnjagvet-

Geez-the jesuits usually are associated with universities.

They teach philosophy.

I think it was Machiavelli who started "the ends justify the means".

theo

Jim E. -- It can be a factor. Jurors universally tell you that they try very hard to get at the TRUTH of the matter and try not to get hung up on which lawyer they like more and all of that. But it is easier to listen to and understand people you like than people you do not like. The biggest presentation issue is that the prosecutor must absolutely appear to be honest. If he is seen as fudging or manipulating, it goes down badly. Defense ls given a bit more leeway, but credibility is still an issue.

JM Hanes

TM:

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

Not after hearing Russert's "I did not state her name, no." I thought Wells was really smart to leave that hanging fire.

I appreciate film makers who give me credit for being able to recognize important moments on my own without adding extra dialogue/devices just to make sure I got it. And don't you just despise the broadcasters who come on after a speech to tell us what we just heard, and what it meant (along with the guys who come on first to tell us what we're going to hear, and what the speechifier needs to accomplish)?

Nevertheless, I'm perfectly happy to tell you what I think we should take away from this. I don't think TeamLibby is going to persuade anybody that Russert was out to get Libby. The best they can probably hope for is to cut him down to Judy Miller size. He's no Walter Cronkite. He's a player with an ego and an image at stake, with memory problems just like everybody else. He has had serious conflict of interest problems from the start which have demonstrably impacted how forthcoming he has been with the public, with his media colleagues...and the court.

miriam

Ranger and Clarice:

Are you talking about yesterday's questions from the jury?

Martin

Ranger, I'd say these questions show the jurors are a little concerned about Libby's perjury charge:

Walton (W): Had there been any discussions before Novak article of Wilson's wife

Tim Russert (T): No.

Dan S

vnjagvet,

Heh, I bet my upbringing is similar in that respect (just not in the emphasis on ends, those are in the Lord's hands). Exegesis began at about age 2. The Jesuits considered us the enemy in those days: Baptists.

clarice

Everybody sees it differntly Swopa apparently thinks the redirect was fab (raising eyebrows) His summary:
"Walton reminds jurors that Plame's status as covert is not under consideration here, and they are not to speculate about it. Then he reads the questions

Walton (W): Had there been any discussions before Novak article of Wilson's wife

Tim Russert (T): No.

W: After his article was published?

T: Yes.

W: During deposition, were you given a list of questions ahead of time?

T: No.

W: Any script you were given?

T: No.

W: Did you approve or ban any questions in advance?

T: No, I answered what I was asked.

W: Did you relate any claims by Mr. Libby about Wilson's wife to Shapiro? (on July 8th, apparently)

T: Only remember talking to him about Chris Mathews.

W: What were circumstances of call to Buffalo News reporter?

T: (explains Fazio-Clinton debate, what reporter said, what he complained about. Says he then sent a letter to that effect, and paper printed clarification.)

W: Remember when you called reporter? How long it lasted, etc?

T: I don't. Remember letter more than phone call.

W: (to defense) Any follow-up questions?

Wells: Mr. Russert, you have no recollection of Mr. Libby telling you any information about Ms. Wilson?

T: No.

Wells: Thank you. "

Sara (Squiggler)

Walter, I apologize if I offended. I was quoting a friend who was always running off to the church to confess only to go out and "sin" again. I should have kept my mouth shut since I'm not even Catholic.

Dan S

"I think it was Machiavelli who started "the ends justify the means".

Posted by: roanoke "

Twas I who said that, not vnjagvet.

And I didn't say the Jesuits STARTED that philosphy.

Ranger

Ranger, I'd say these questions show the jurors are a little concerned about Libby's perjury charge:

Walton (W): Had there been any discussions before Novak article of Wilson's wife

Tim Russert (T): No.

Posted by: Martin | February 08, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Or you could take that as a question about Ari's credability. Remember, Ari says he told Gregory about Wilson's Wife 3 days before the Novak article, so, if there was no conversation before Novaks article then Ari's testimony may be in question.

theo

JMHanes --

I think you are right. The biggest problem is that there is still no particular reason for Russert to have lied about this initially. Oh sure, you can stretch for one, but why would Russert lie to the FBI about this? Whatever reason he might have had it was not worth potentially going to jail for.

The defense here I think needs to focus on arguing either that Russert is mistaken -- months later with no notes, he might have gotten confused about this -- or that Libby is mistaken.

Ranger

Theo,

I think that was the whole point behind the previous calls that Russert forgot. Easy and direct parralel for the jurors to draw. He forgot one set of phonecalls, he may well have forgoten the actual content of this one too.

Dan S

well, that was anti-climactic. Done for the weekend.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: JIM E

Last night, up at Freepers, Kristinn, who had been in the court room, yesterday, filed her take.

She said she hadn't seen so many celebrities in the courthouse since Monica days.

She said (while she sat perpendicular to the jurors, and did not stare). They were not bored. But kept busy watching and writing notes.

She said when she left it seems all the "top brass" who had seating left CRESTFALLEN. Faces really downcast.

So, even if the jurors prefer Fitzmas to "fizzle" ... I'd guess if they're hearts are in it; Russert only added to their confusion. He admits to hiding news of value. And, he keeps his friends more important to him, than his viewers' interests and needs.

Fans are interesting people. Since everyone knows celebrity ends. Even Dan Rather has fewer fans these days. (And, in the news business you're bad by being able to attract a big audience.) Tim Russert is no Tim Lehrer, in this department.

That he'll get more viewers, ahead? Sure. People stop to look at accident scenes. But eventually a clean up crew comes along, and moves the debris away.

I'll also guess, IF Russert falls from grace? A lot of people will race to write books about this debacle. And, they'll more eagerly (rather than less so), go and point fingers at him. At least that's my hunch.

While as a side benefit? Cheney wanted so much to get the word out that Joe Wilson was a LIAR! I think that's gonna also be the "accepted view," ahead, too.

The media could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they gave up on trying to follow Woodward's footsteps with Nixon.

I'd also like to see Mueller of the FIB forced to turn in his badge. And, give up his office. Ultimately, ya gotta blame the guy that controls the agency.

And, let's stop playing "HIDE THE EVIDENCE."

Martin

Ranger-my point is it's a stretch to read too much into the tealeaves of questions the judge approves.

Hell-I think Libby's guilty, but if I was on the jury I'd certainly ask the toughest questions I could to everyone.

Barney Frank

theo,

--The biggest problem is that there is still no particular reason for Russert to have lied about this initially.--

IIRC his initial response to Eckenrode was that it was possible Wilson's wife was discussed.
Twas only later that it became "impossible".

Switching topics I don't think one can read the jurors questions either way.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
RE: JUROR'S QUESTIONS

Just because someone tells you "no." Doesn't mean your doubts are erased.

Wells still has to present his DEFENSE.

Up ahead there can be a lot of facts that show this was a "scripted event."

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.

As for the questions, intresting at least one juror still seems to wonder if Libby told Russert.

fdcol63

Wells: Mr. Russert, you have no recollection of Mr. Libby telling you any information about Ms. Wilson?

T: No.

Cue Perry Mason theme: Wells now produces a copy of email correspondence between Russert and Gregory:

TR: Dude, you're not gonna believe this! Libby said Wilson's wife is a deep-cover covert agent with the CIA and she's the one who sent Wilson to Nee-jher to follow-up on that "crazy idea" about Saddam looking for some yellow-cake at the behest of Cheney!

DG: Yeah, man! Fleischer told me the same thing!

TR: (laughing) He said it as if we in the news "biz" didn't already know it! What does he take us for????!!!! Amateurs???!!

DG: (laughing, too) Jeez .... these right-wing fascist neocons are so stupid! With people like Andrea and Judith and Matt and Bob digging deep for news from sources like Armitage, Powell, and Wilson .... wow, maybe we really CAN give Kerry that 15% advantage he needs on Nov!

topsecretk9

I happen to think the heavy handed grilling is a bonus if they have evidence TR isn't being truthful they will illustrate on defense.

They gave TR every opportunity to say it on his own.

Jim E.

"As for the questions, intresting at least one juror still seems to wonder if Libby told Russert."

That was the defense attorney who asked that question.

Walter

Sara,

'salright. I know I've done the same by accident.

DanS, IIRC that debate was resolved by some council in the middle ages--against the "ends justify the means".

Which isn't to say that Jesuits weren't proponents. They have been known for their (sometimes excessive) enthusiasm.*

*Insert obligatory Monty Python reference here.

Martin

Time to cop a plea.

Enlightened

When Russert (or any other witnesses) was subpoenaed, would that include e-mails?

I'm wondering if he took his laptop on vacation when Mitchell interviewed JW. Just wondering if maybe Mitchell/Russert had a e-mail string going as to the program content/flow with Wilson.

maryrose

sara:
As a catholic I can tell you that it is not just confession{it is now called reconciliation} and a few Hail Marys. There has to be a sincere desire not to sin again.You have to want to try to improve your behavior. Without that frame of mind you cannot receive absolution from the priest. There, a theology lesson for the day. I think at this point Russert needs to examine his conscience-also a part of the Reconciliation process.

Sara (Squiggler)

Anna Nicole Smith collapsed and was rushed to hospital unresponsive. Hospital saying, "it does not look good."

topsecretk9
W: What were circumstances of call to Buffalo News reporter?

T: (explains Fazio-Clinton debate, what reporter said, what he complained about. Says he then sent a letter to that effect, and paper printed clarification.)

W: Remember when you called reporter? How long it lasted, etc?

T: I don't. Remember letter more than phone call.

This question reminds me of the juror question to Judy's other sources - went to jail for 85 days to protect sources she can not remember

Ranger

Time to cop a plea.

Posted by: Martin | February 08, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Yeah, the defense has basically crushed the credibility of the memories of all but one of the prosecution witnesses at this time. They've got Russert admiting he concealed evidence from a federal judge and the public, and they've got the FBI agent admiting that her reports don't match her notes, and that her notes are much more favorable to the defendant that what was shown to the GJ to indict. And the defense hasn't even presented its FIRST witness yet.

Get a grip. This is far from over.

epphan

Come on Martin, TR wasn't that bad. He's not in trouble!

Pete

MaineWebreport nails it:

My opinion is that neither Libby nor Russert are credible with these statements. IF they are being truthful, 1) Our country is in a sad state of affairs if someone with near-amnesiatic fits like Libby has anything to do with our national security apparatus, and 2) Our country is in sad shape if the Foreign Affairs Correspondent and Washington Bureau Chief of NBC news both can’t remember such important details as the ones they are saying they forgot here.

fdcol63

Hey - there'e always ECHELON! LOL

Cycloptichorn

'Hospital saying, "it does not look good."'

Though frankly that could describe her at pretty much any moment of the day

Sara (Squiggler)

Someone needs to write Shepherd Smith regarding Libby case. He doesn'thave a clue. With guests, still talking about outing covert agent and that VP sent Wilson and that Wilson totally debunked Administration on WMD.

Dan S

Walter,

Yeah, it was resolved (to a theological, not necessarily practical "known") within Christianity. But that philosophy lives on in Maxism and its direct descendants. As such the Jesuitical tendencies to knee-jerk in that direction (which would normally correct back onto the straight and narrow following that decision) tend also to trigger the modernthink which pulls strongly there.

Not that the "Progressivists" and their close cousins are any descendants of Marxism. Not that modern media hasn't shown over and over that "truth" is more important than fact. Not that...

Nevermind, I doth protest too much and I'm no lady.

kazinski

Martin:
"Time to cop a plea."

Fitz or Russert?

Sara (Squiggler)

Cyclop, she is on a respirator.

topsecretk9

--Anna Nicole Smith collapsed and was rushed to hospital unresponsive. Hospital saying, "it does not look good."--

Geez...what a tragic train wreck situation that's been.

maryrose

And this is news?

Thread Herder

New Thread

Thank you for posting with us today on Just One Minute. A few moments ago, the captain has turned on a new thread.

There are six exits on this typepad blog: two at the front, two over the wings and two at the rear. Please take a moment to locate the exit nearest you, keeping in mind the nearest exit may be behind you.

In the unlikely event of a water landing, your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device.

Thank you for posting with us today, if there's anything we can do to help make your exit more comfortable, please do not hestiate to let us know.

Thank you.

Cycloptichorn

Just a sad sort of news.

I wish she'd just go into hiding for a few years and clean herself up.

Dan S

"--Anna Nicole Smith collapsed and was rushed to hospital unresponsive. Hospital saying, "it does not look good."--"

Wilson's first wife?

Dan S

Thread Herder,

You DO know you're begging for a thread-hijacking, don't you?

topsecretk9

--I wish she'd just go into hiding for a few years and clean herself up.--

I feel bad for her infant daughter.

Sara (Squiggler)

Only news if you think that snake lawyer new husband ofhers had nothing todowith the death of her son. Awfully suspicious that she now collapses.

Agree TSK9, a train wreck is an understatement, I think.

Authorities are going to hold a news conference. Hmmmm.n Apparently witnesses say 'EMTs were doing CPR as they took her out ofthe hotel/casino she'dbeen staying at in Florida.

clarice

Charlie can't post and some are seeing blue again..If the site crashes go to Flares into Darkness for a parallel site.

From Taranto Best of the Web:
"Something's Missing
An Associated Press account of yesterday's proceedings in the Scooter Libby trial contains lots of background about the case:

Plame's identity was leaked shortly after her husband began accusing the Bush administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq. The controversy over the faulty intelligence was a major story in mid-2003. . . .

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has spent weeks making the case that Libby was preoccupied with discrediting Wilson. Several former White House, CIA and State Department officials testified that Libby discussed Plame with them--all before the Russert conversation. . . .

Though President Bush was publicly stating that nobody in the White House was involved in the leak, Libby knew that he himself had spoken to several reporters about Plame. He said he did not bring that up with Bush and was uncertain whether he discussed it with Cheney.

Nowhere in the story, though, is the name Richard Armitage mentioned"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame