If You Can't Get A Memory Expert, Get Russert And Ftizgerald

If lawyers used the phrase "pwn3d", defense attorney Wells would have been scrawling it on the whiteboard at the Libby trial today.  With a bit of misdirection he induced Russert and Fitzgerald to demonstrate Libby's memory defense for him.  But did he thank them afterwards?  We will have to wait for the summation.

What happened is this - the defense was playing various videotapes of NBC coverage the day Libby was indicted, ostensibly to make the point that Tim Russert was pleased to see Libby indicted.  However, Russert could not seem to remember much - more excerpts (Swopa 5) appear after the break but here is one for flavor:

W: Do you remember saying to Katie Couric about the indictment, "It's huge… first time in 130 years"?

T: No, I don't question that I said it, but I just don't remember.

W: Do you have a bad memory?

T: No.

W: You don't remember going on TV to discuss a historic indictment, where you were personally involved?

T: I do television a lot, a lot of stories and interviews.

Following the multiple demonstrations of Russert's inability to recall the morning's coverage, Special Counsel Fitzgerald took over on re-direct with this: 

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.

So let's see - Russert was all over the news shows that morning but forgot what he said because it was unimportant.  And Fitzgerald is OK with that - it's only reasonable that Russert would remember the important stuff and forget the rest.

No further questions.  Geez, the Libby Defense Trust could have hired an expert memory witness, but why bother with these two at hand?

Tim Russert, to the tune of "Try to Remember":

 

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

T: (meekly) No.

...  

W: Do you recall whether the Today show reported that Libby would be [indicted]? 

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: 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: 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. 

W: Do you remember saying to Katie Couric about the indictment, "It's huge… first time in 130 years"? 

T: No, I don't question that I said it, but I just don't remember. 

W: Do you have a bad memory? 

T: No. 

W: You don't remember going on TV to discuss a historic indictment, where you were personally involved? 

T: I do television a lot, a lot of stories and interviews.

Comments

[clarice]

This post gets 5 stars *****. One of your best.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

OT, but we need a 'hearsay' thread. I cannot see in this primer how the judge cannot allow Wells to use the tapes of Andrea Mitchell.

It's her statement, and she's available to be examined on it, so how can it be hearsay? And, even if it were, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule anyway.

For instance, the 'against interest' one:

'(4) ADMISSIONS AND DECLARATIONS AGAINST ONE'S INTERESTS -- These involve long-established common law exceptions to the hearsay rule....The rationale behind this group of exceptions is the legal system's confidence in the notion of "probability of truthfulness." When a person says or writes something that isn't exactly in their best interests, the legal system assumes that those statements probably would not have been made unless they were true.'

[Sue]

I personally think if the jury wants to find reasonable doubt, they have enough to do so. If they don't want to, they have enough to convict. It is not a slam dunk (ha ha) but I still feel a conviction will be likely, on at least all but the Cooper charges.

On a side note, I am back to posting in Firefox. IE is not working again.

[centralcal]

Sean Hannity did a few minutes on the Libby trial, Russert testimony, and potential Mitchell testimony. Gave a big shout out to Clarice Feldman at American Thinker for her trial coverage.

[kazinski]

Not to mention that Russert says he has no recollection of the conversation with Libby, it was just impossible for it to happen that way based on his recollection of what he knew at the time . I can't see how a juror convicts based on the faulty memories exhibited by everyone involved in this case.

The biggest question I have now is does Libby need to put on a defense? I guess they do only to put into evidence everything else that Libby was dealing with at the time. If Russert can't remember big details that were integral to his job, like Today show appearances, how is Libby supposed to remember things that were quite peripheral to his job, at a time when the invasion was just 4 months old. Remember that Uday an Qusay were killed July 22nd 2003. Half the deck of cards were still at large at that time, including of course Saddam.

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

I agree. I'm still ambivalent as to whether Libby should testify.

Can you summarize what motive you believe that Fitz has ascribed to Libby? That's the snag for me - he hasn't clarified what central reason Libby would have to do the things of which he is accused.

[MayBee]

Jeffrey Toobin on CNN:
The federal prosecutor has the ability to grant immunity, which is like waving a wand and telling a witness they can say whatever they did and whatever they say, they won't get in trouble. It is a huge power, a very important power, and it should not be used lightly. It must be used only when there is a bigger crime, a worse crime that must be solved.

At last! I thought. They are covering this fairly. Alas, he was not talking about Fitz and Ari at all. It was about the border control agents.

[TexasToast]

The thing about the faulty memories angle is that the "faulty memories" of the witnesses (on the whole) corroborate each other - except for Mr. Libby.

Am I mistaken, or was Wells trying to insinuate that Russert would celebrate Mr. Libby's indictment? I didn't see Wells as the tinfoil type.

Reasonable doubt? Keep hope alive!

[hit and run]

centalcal:
Sean Hannity...Gave a big shout out to Clarice Feldman at American Thinker for her trial coverage.

So did I.

But my wife gave me a funny look when I did? And my kids were all just blank stares?

[Jane]

Can you summarize what motive you believe that Fitz has ascribed to Libby?

I believe the motive will be that in order to not implicate the VP as the source of the leak (that is not at issue in this case, AND we don't even know if Mrs Wilson was covert) Libby lied said the information came from Russert.

[kate]

Texas Toast:

Your comment that the faulty memories corroborate each other confuses me.

Could you please provide a specific example.

[Jane]

Libby Lied and said

[Sue]

Rick,

I don't have any idea. The only thing in evidence is fear of losing his job and those underlined articles that talk about outing a CIA agent. He will have to go with one or both of those but how he sells it to the jury is beyond me. I don't doubt he can though. He is pretty good and selling stuff to juries. He got this crap of a case to trial.

[clarice]

All right h & r you've been begging for it.*T_H_W_A_CK_***888

[CAL]

So as things stand now, are there any reporters that claim Libby leaked to them?

[lauraw]

Just so you know the Wells team is fighting this like gangbusters, my hallmate's daughter is an intern there, and she reports that they have a nightly stack of Starbuck cups that has a Babel-like proportion (to the heavens...). So no coasting there. . . .

[windansea]

but I still feel a conviction will be likely,

got hedge?

aren't you the one with the cute quarterback betting theory? :)

[Javani]

Russert is funny on his memory, but IMO the best of the trial comes from the cross on Grenier:

J does your memory get better with time?

G It depends.

J did you find a note?

G what improved was what I remember thinking and feeling afterwards. That only came to me afterwards. What triggered it and why, I don't know.

J And when did you forget that feeling?

G I didn't recall it.

J What triggered that feeling?

G I wish I could tell you.

[Sue]

Texas,

Are you in the category that believes future indictments are coming? In the 'big' case?

[Thread Herder]

New Thread

That's it. I'm done. It's official. Tom can put up posts faster than I can herd.

I'm going back to my sheep.

[drifter]

TT -

None of the prosecution witnesses corroborate any of the others on the factual points that are in dispute in this case. (Perhaps you don't know what "corroborate" means....)

[Ed Van Bomel]

Kate:

Don't hold your breath waiting for anything concrete or enlightening from Texas Toast...This trial screams REASONABLE DOUBT to anyone not drinking the Kool Aid.

[Sue]

got hedge?

aren't you the one with the cute quarterback betting theory? :)

Absolutely. Which should make Libby a happy camper, since I'm absolutely never right. ::grin::

[Thread Herder]

Clarice:
All right h & r you've been begging for it.*T_H_W_A_CK_***888

Thank you Clarice, may I have another!

[MayBee]

Libby's motive was that he thought he might be in trouble legally and professionally, so he started lying about what he'd done (which may or may not have actually been illegal).

[MayBee]

Clarice:
All right h & r you've been begging for it.*T_H_W_A_CK_***888

Thank you Clarice, may I have another!

Posted by: Thread Herder | February 08, 2007 at 04:11 PM

The most shocking outing since Valerie Plame!

[Thread Herder]

got hedge?

aren't you the one with the cute quarterback betting theory? :)

Absolutely. Which should make Libby a happy camper, since I'm absolutely never right. ::grin::

Posted by: Sue | February 08, 2007 at 04:11 PM

Oooooh, who's cuter -- Fitz or Wells?

[windansea]

Sue

I think Fitz is cuter than Libby but Libby has a hot wife and Fitz has 3 month old pizza in the oven...you make the call

[MaidMarion]

After the judge dismissed the jury today, there was discussion as to whether or not to call Mitchell as a witness.

Her NBC lawyer affirmed that, if called, she would testify that she was not aware "Wilson's wife worked at the CIA" prior to Novak's article.

What Mitchell needs to be asked is whether or not she knew, before July 6, 2003, that "Valerie Plame worked at the CIA".

I believe Mitchell did not know Valerie Plame was the wife of Joe Wilson.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

So far? Russert didn't benefit from his "chance" on the stand.

In black & white TV days, there used to be a show that showcased investigative reporters. By showing how they could (with privileges extended through our Constitution), FREE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO WERE IN JAIL! And, prosecutors could not put them there, either.

Sure, old times.

But where's Russert's benefits gonna come from now? If the jury convicts? Russert's just a rat who put an innocent guy in jail, over "mickey mouse" words. Phooey.

We also don't know how the judge feels about Fitz' propensity to prosecute with "stretching the law."

Today I learned that the break that seemed to take so long, was done because the judge called other judges. To decide if the tapes of Russert on TV, could come in. THEY CAME IN.

And, WOW. If the jury aquits? What does that do to Russert's career? If it's a "jump," then it's a jump over the shark, in my opinion.

Judge Walton IS, as Clarice has said, a very good judge. (And, I was wrong for assuming he couldn't be.) He's in control of this case that the prosecutor brought into his courtroom.

Nobody can guess how it all plays out.

But for Russert? There's no way he can come out of this in better shape, than was shown on all those crestfallen faces, yesterday. Celebrities (who count in Russert's life), leaving the courtroom crestfallen.

And, what's in Judge Walton's heart? He's gotta love the law a hell of a lot more than I do. And, as I said, once there was a show about investigative reporters, who used their ability to be heard in print, to free innocent men from jail. Russert doesn't have that talent.

Some $5,000,000 dollar a year man. And, we laugh when the pentagon overpays for toilet seats.

[hit and run]

whoops. Wasn't even intended to be a secret, and hope no one thought I was trying to be deceptive.

I just thought h&r didn't have the right to ask anyone to move from thread to thread..........which is definitely true - I don't! But I still wanted to try and keep comments as easy to read as possible.

Am I a sock puppet? If so, (I don't know the rules) I am deeply ashamed.

[Javani]

Clarice, etc.

You see any way Wilson and Novak can be called against prosecution objection on materiality? I don't see much now, though Judge Walton might think Novak relevant to the fact Libby wasn't his source, ie, reiterating this case is not about the article that caused the overarching scandal.

Plus I think Novak would be entertaining. He, the person who breached the cultural norms between DC govt. and media. He, the person who said the CIA should have urged him more strongly not to reveal Wilson's Wife.

[windansea]

H&R = Thread herder??

who knew? I think you are funnier as the herdmaster

[windansea]

in fact...give your wife a thrill and dress up in the Herdmaster cape tonight

[centralcal]

This place needs a Thread Herder! Good job.

[Sue]

H&R,

I figured it out yesterday. Just didn't want to out you. ::grin::

Who's cuter? Fitz or Wells? Does this work with trial lawyers? Truthfully, in my experience, I haven't seen very many 'hot' lawyers. Sorry if any of you are lawyers and are hot, I am speaking from personal experience here, not general, nationwide, etc., and so forth. I don't think Fitz is hot, but then I don't think Wells is hot either. So where does that leave my theory? The same place it was when I used it to pick a Super Bowl winner. Useless. ::grin::

[hit and run]

I am hoping that the herdmaster did a good enough job to limit the damage.

This should be hush hush, on the QT.

mmmmmkay?

[Another Bob]

Nice job H&R. Thanks.

[hit and run]

Don't worry, Thread Herder has another 10 "transition" comments lined up.

But, really, I feel really really bad about the Christopher Fotos thing. I mean, I really never intended to cut someone's traffic down!

I read this blog at work, and I really try to get through it as fast as I can to make sure my boss doesn't catch me still be productive at work.

I feel horrible!

No, not for having tried to deceive you. For getting caught. Duh!

(Sue, I knew you knew, and you probably knew I knew you knew. And I had already outed myself to Walter on a previous thread anyway.)

I love you all.

[pete]

"This coming from fans of President for life Chavez, Castro, Saddam, Mugabe? That's rich."

Pofarmer. Hmmm. I don't recall being an advocate for any of these friends of yours.

"Interesting that the handmaidens are not al-Qaeda or the Baathist insurgents who kill civilians in markets or in schools and are trying to overthrow by force a democratically-elected government, but Bush and Cheney and the neocons."

SteveMG. You could try behaving like an adult and accepting reponsibility for your own actions ... . The slaughter house is still there. It's just under new management ... ours. And it's only costing us one trillion+ so far.

"Lurker, you obviously don't live in pete's world. In pete's world the political opposition is often taken out and shot."

You know I don't think even Carol (FROM CAROL HERMAN) understands that one.

"For the same reason folks can't help gawking at car wrecks on the highway."

Congrats JMHanes. The car wreck is your political party. Dig in buddy.

"I answered Kristoff's inane questions the other day."

Theo. The article calls for answers from CHENEY not you.

Don't feel bad if I did not respond to your post. It was simply because it was unintelligible.

[Chris]

Am I mistaken, or was Wells trying to insinuate that Russert would celebrate Mr. Libby's indictment? I didn't see Wells as the tinfoil type.

Posted by: TexasToast

Well, it was Tim Russert who described the atmosphere in the newsroom on indictment eve as akin to "Christmas Eve".

[hit and run]

Now. GET OFF THIS DAMN THREAD!!!

Oh wait, wrong name. I think?

I'm so confused.

Stay here while I sort things out. Or go eleswhere. I'm not the boss of you.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

For my 2-cents, I see no downside at all in Libby testifying to the jury, NOW. Fitz broke the dam. Libby can't be harassed on cross more than he was harassed by Fitz' GJ audio.

AND?

At least in court Fitz is not alone!

The judge is there.

And, Wells is there.

ANd, WELLS directs the testimony of his witness. Where can Fitz go?

First off, IN COURT, Fitz needs Viagra to do much "but quickies." Guy's got a real problem!

And, WELLS? HE sets it up for Libby. Who is very bright. And, can handle the cross.

Let Libby show what it's like to be railroaded by a lunatic prosecutor.

Libby is NOT Michael Jackson! Michael Jackson did not have to take the stand for the jurors to use Sneddon's LACK OF EVIDENCE while persecuting Jackson "for being weird."

Why are people more scared of jurors, rather than less so? These people seem to be paying attention.

Not only that! But Walton, if for some reason he lacks faith IN THESE JURORS, can always derail Fitz with a "DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES." Bingo. Fitz can't appeal. He's cooked.

Sure. The jurors "could" convict. But Libby being on the stand isn't what would cause this.

And, the jurors can HANG. A better reason for Libby to be heard.

As to the "hang" ... again, it's in the nature of a mistrial. And, Fitz can "pocket the case" ... Leaving Libby in LIMBO.

Let Libby SPEAK.

[Andrea Mitchell]

Everybody knew H&R was the ThreadHerder

[Sue]

If this trial was anywhere but DC, I would give Libby a 50/50 chance of getting reasonable doubt. The location is what makes me think he will be convicted. With the Cooper counts being the weakest, we might see them fail to convict on those charges, especially if there is a hold out on the other charges. They are told not to compromise, but they do it anyway.

[Pete's Mom]

Patrick Petey BushCoMcHaliburtonChimpeachment!!!

I told you to stay away from those NeoCons...clean your room!!!

[Christopher Fotos]

But, really, I feel really really bad about the Christopher Fotos thing. I mean, I really never intended to cut someone's traffic down!

Oh geez, don't worry about that! I'm just leeching off the Just One Minute grid as it is.

Besides....Thread Herder has a heart of gold

[hit and run]

By the way also, if by trying to "herd" all commenters onto a single thread for MY convenience has caused inconveniences for people - especially those with dialups - I am also sorry. Another "unintended consequence".

But don't blame hit and run. It was Thread Herder's fault. Damn that Thread Herder.

Andrea Mitchell - you're gonna recant that aren't you?

[hit and run]

Oh geez, don't worry about that! I'm just leeching off the Just One Minute grid as it is.

Well, aren't we all. Some for traffic.

And some of us for Clarice **thwacks**

You're getting the short end of the stick, my friend.

[Cycloptichorn]

Tom, you said

'
No further questions. Geez, the Libby Defense Trust could have hired an expert memory witness, but why bother with these two at hand?'

You forget; They did have a memory expert -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601612.html

[pete]

Pete's Mom

"I told you to stay away from those NeoCons...clean your room!!!"

Your not my real mom. You abducted me when I was six and took me to live with you in a neocon commune where I have been home-schooled from the neocon manifesto "The Project for a New American Century" and subjected to the likes of Tom Foley and Ted Haggard.

[Dan S]

"(Perhaps you don't know what "corroborate" means....)

Posted by: drifter | February 08, 2007 at 04:09 PM "

Is that, like, slobbering while you collaborate like that guy on TV who's always hating Cheney?

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: SUE

Gal, in "any other town," this "show" wouldn't have produced so many celebrities to watch RUSSERT testify.

They all walked out CRESTFALLEN. (No. I wasn't there. Kristinn was. And, got lots of compliments for posting her impressions up on Freepers.)

There's no upside for RUSSERT.

On the other hand? I see no down side for Libby. He's got a wonderful attorney. He's married to a gorgious attorney. And, he's in the court room every day.

When the jurors were listening to the 8 hours of tape from the GJ, they used their eyes to look around.

Today? Russert walked in looking like a dog. Even if he also looked like he was wearing make up.

Pictures of LIbby walking in to court today, also caught his glamorous wife. I saw this up at Freepers. WOW. You should have seen Libby's smile! Ear to ear.

And, Libby is ALSO a lawyer!

Russert had to "admit to being one." (But he doesn't practice. Why, folks. He doesn't have to practice. He knocks off $5,000,000 a year from NBC.) You think people practice law if they can earn $5,000,000 smackaroos in salary?

Libby ON THE STAND can show the jurors the differences between "ATTORNEY QUALITY."

DC. It's a "town divided." Between the slepps who work in the kitchen. ANd, the "pretty people" who are connected.

Whom do you think loves our Constitution more?

February 12th celebrates Lincoln's Birthday. He was born in 1809. CLARICE: 198 years after Lincoln's birth, you will be sitting in Walton's courtroom. You bet there's stuff to celebrate.

And, while you're there, please report back the "BOND" stuff. The nitty gritty on body language. ANd, what vibes you get from this defendant, on trial. THANKS.

Like Mitchell and Abramson are gonna be a slam dunk for Fitz. Fake stories like that won't be the "news" ... Wells is loaded for bear.

And, Abraham Lincoln was a great attorney, let's not forget that, either.

DC is just the place for this show.

In any other town? Fitz's case would would have met American skeptics a lot sooner.

[Dan S]

H&R,

I noted some stylistic similarities between you and TH almost immediately. By MUCH earlier today was was approaching certainty. But where's the fun in outing? I'll leave that to those who harrass gays and other "undercover" sorts.

And as to your earlier sockpuppet question:

Technically, yes, you are. But you aren't pretending to be another and separate poster (sheesh, the language is not very strong on dealing with multiple identity types). I mean, you aren't parasitical on another's identity. Nor are you using identity B to appear to be separate than A and support the arguments of A. Both of those are considered less than ethical.

Instead you're having fun, and making things fun for others. That's good.

Just be aware that the lines can blur pretty easily, so it's best to keep well away from anything that looks like a line.

Thread sort of looks like a line, now that I think about it...

[lurker]

Don't feel bad if I did not respond to your post. It was simply because it was unintelligible.

It's because you don't understand our intelligent comments.

[clarice]

My husband stays away from the trial pretty much, but he said he thinks Russert helps Libby. If Libby knew and was so angry that Russert's colleague Matthews, kept pumping the Wilson story why didn;t he just tell him about Wilson's wife then and there if he knew.

[Whitehall]

NBC is a unit of General Electric. Did anyone else notice the removal of the head of the entertainment division, Mr. Wright, and his replacement in daily management with another guy?

So Mr. Russett is not only in the middle of a trial that is making him look, at best, a poor reporter, but he's got a new boss too.

[Andrea Mitchell]

"Everybody knew H&R was the ThreadHerder"

I was soooo drunk when I said that!

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

I just finished reading the Libby March 5 gj appearance testimony. That's why I'm really wondering whether putting him on is a good idea. The gj had been presold by Fitz on the evil Bushco big case and Libby (whom I believe was telling the truth as he knew it) just got worse and worse as time dragged on. An attorney sitting next to him would have taken the shine off his shoes and left so many bruises on his shins and ankles that he'd have thought he was in a soccer game with ten year olds.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: TOM McQUIRE

I loved it when you wrote about all those people Fitz faces "who raise their hands." And, to paraphrase, "why not cut to the chase."

But since you've drifted in the direction "of raised hands?"

How many "raised hands" would there be of people who got polled about Russert's comments that he could testify against Libby BECAUSE LIBBY'S CALL FROM THE VEEP'S SVP was about a customer complaint? Not a confidential call. RIIGHT? You think this isn't risible?

Again, I think if LIBBY TESTIFIES? He'd let the jurors see the differences between FINALLY BEING ABLE TO COMPLETE WHAT CHENEY WANTED ... which was to PROVE THE VEEP DIDN'T ASK FOR WILSON TO GO TO NIGER!

Boy, would that get people's heads focussed.

Even the juror who keeps asking about PLAME!

She's "unimportant," now to Fitz' investigation. But he was charged with finding the leaker, wasn't he? HOW COME HE CAN KEEP THAT FACT HIDDEN UNDER HIS HAT?

By the way, "admission against interest" ... if WORDS MEAN WHAT THEY MEAN ... don't get applied to Libby! HE GAVE YOU HIS MEMORY OF THIS! He told Fitz he REMEMBERED what he heard from Russert.

Russert's got a big sign flashing that says?

[clarice]

ROFL___

Here's Russert giving hell to Novak on MTP for not fighting the subpoena :

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:CY4PMWcNRTUJ:www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Russert_to_Novak_Everyone_fought_subpoenas_0716.html+MR.+RUSSERT:+Here%27s+your+column,+July+14,+2003.+%22%5BJoe%5D+Wilson+never+worked+for+the+CIA,+but+his+wife,+Valerie+Plame,+is+an+agency+operative+on+weapons+of+mass+destruction.+Two+senior+administration+officials+told+me+that+Wilson%27s&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us>Russert the lying hypocrite

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN

Clarice! I forgot that the TV shows can now delve into their vaults and play video tapes in their possession!

Wells must have known this could start an avalanche.

Even "if" Russert doesn't go to IMUS t'marra. Imus has the staff that can pull all sorts of previous "comments" ... Russert loved going on Imus.

This is so rich!

And, the press was "compressed" into silence for so long!

While when it comes to "calling Novak?" Aye, yai, yai. He's not called the DARK PRINCE for nothing! Boy, would Wells have to examine him with an outstretched stick. (The way kids look at dead animals. While kids like me used to run away, screaming.)

[Carol Herman]

TO: CLARICE

Can Wells call Russert BACK? That bit of MTP tape with Novak. Wouldn't that boomerang around the courtroom?

What's in mean when the defense calls a "hostile witness?"

Wow, it would be so wonderful to find out that Russert's troubles aren't through.

IS MEET THE PRESS GIVING THIS TO RAW STORY?

The guy's OWN SHOW? Or did Novak have it? Since the RAW STORY ARTICLE has Novak's picture on the side?

[Dan S]

Clarice,

That Russert/Novak interview when laid beside today's testimony by Russert is...

You gotta write this book! Though it wouldn't be a serious look, it's hard to look at this seriously with all these comic moments. Russert lecturing Novak that he gave up his sources to quickly.

"Hello, this is Agent Eckenrode of the FBI, I'm calling on a national security case. May I ask you some questions about your phone conversation with Scooter Libby?"

"Sure! Fire away!"

[JM Hanes]

Clarice:

No joke! From the description of Russert's MTP interview of Novak:

"Russert asked Novak why he seemingly gave up so quickly without a fight."

This from Mr. Tough Guy who spilled his guts on a cold call from someone purporting to be an F.B.I. agent he'd met in church?

"We were subpoenaed at NBC," Russert said. "We fought the subpoenas. Time Magazine subpoenaed, fought the subpoenas. The New York Times was subpoenaed, fought the subpoena. Why didn't you fight the subpoena?"

No excess of $5 mil for Novak, Russ, and no sugar daddies, either.

Seems like there's probably more than a thread's worth of material out there, just begging to be re-examined.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN

I followed the links to an Empty Wheel article as well. Where it stated that Novak "was Cheney's only outlet to the press."

Novak, then goes into details that Plame, in 2003, was an ANALYST.

It seems it's STILL HIDDEN that Plame was WITHOUT SALARY in 2003. Because she got into trouble where the CIA punished her and took away her paychecks for one entire year.

Then, she had to exit. Fired? Or is this called a "DC resignation?"

How come that doesn't topple out the way Linda Tripp's personnel records fell into the public domain?

How do I know about Plame? It showed up on one of the blog comments. And, then disappeared. (But Clarice is the one who mentioned to remember about Linda Tripp getting so exposed. And, no one being punished.)

I sure hope Wells can drag Russert's ass back into court, as a "hostile witness." It would not be a waste of time to have him read the RAW STORY ARTICLE OUT LOUD. He can practice. So he doesn't have to do it with his glasses on.

[JM Hanes]

Jane:

"I believe the motive will be that in order to not implicate the VP as the source of the leak (that is not at issue in this case, AND we don't even know if Mrs Wilson was covert) Libby lied said the information came from Russert."

Pretty revealing isn't it? Here you are speculating on what motive the Prosecution will impute to Libby... when the Prosecution has already finished making its case.

[topsecretk9]

Russert asked why it took so long for him to say anything about his testimony.

"When I was subpoenaed, we announced it," said Russert. "When I testified before Patrick Fitzgerald, we announced that in what I had said and so, too, with Time Magazine and The New York Times.

"Why did you wait almost three years to tell the public that you had been subpoenaed and what you said?" Russert asked.

GAGGGGGGG!

I did the great and honorable thing, why didn't YOU?

[topsecretk9]

--Russert asked why it took so long for him to say anything about his testimony.--

Isn't this essentially the same question that Wells asked TR about his little chat with the FBI churchman? And didn't Russert say because they asked him to keep it confidential?

Well, well, well.

[clarice]

Yup--and then there's that other bit in the MTP exchange, suggesting NBC was so much more principled than Novak because THEY fought the subpoena, unlike Novak.
BROTHER!

[danking70]

Well, I would imagine Novak's got a new news article to write.

Payback's a bitch.

Great find Clarice.

[Pofarmer]

Pretty revealing isn't it? Here you are speculating on what motive the Prosecution will impute to Libby... when the Prosecution has already finished making its case.

Pretty powerful stuff there.

[Jane]

Pretty revealing isn't it? Here you are speculating on what motive the Prosecution will impute to Libby... when the Prosecution has already finished making its case.

The problem is if there are jurors out there who believe like the moonbats do, that the administration was out to hurt that wonderful Joe Wilson for revealing how wrong we were to go to war. They already know the motive, by heart. And there is no evidence to the contrary that will dissuade them. The real question, I guess, is if we are dealing with an OJ jury, or something else.

[ghostcat]

Jane -

I've not been in the courtroom ... Clarice has ... but I get the sense that Wells is pretty comfortable with that jury.

[clarice]

I watched in the media room. Wells is a master. I saw him largely in the jury selection process--

[Jane]

So do you think the jury is on the up and up?

[JJ]

Well, did anyone think maybe Wells somewhat overdid it today?

Seemed to me that Wells drove some good nails and then started doing overmuch?

Russert's non-practicing-lawyer-to-lawyer answers were interesting...

My favorite was:

Wells: "You look happy in that picture, smiling."

Russert's response: "That's a still photo."

OK!...it's a still pic of you smiling, Russert.

[JJ]

That said, I don't think Wells cornered Russert as much as could have.

I thought the old legal adage (you lawyer types) was: don't ask a question that you don't already know the answer to.

Seemed like Russert spent a lot of time frustrating Wells...

[clarice]

As good as you'll get here, Jane. Better than Massachusetts I suppose.

[Dan S]

JJ,

Wells was probably working the clock.

[JJ]

Dan really?

Noticed on FDL that Jane claimed the photo was a stock print and not one associated with line of questioning about Fitmas.

Plus, I am really disappointed that the Libby-Russert phone call was buried in so much "I don't recall" stuff.

It does seem pretty impossible/unlikely/improbable that Russert had no recollection of much of anything.

[kepa poalima]

"Everybody knew H&R was the ThreadHerder", yeah i heard that too !!

[hit and run]

in fact...give your wife a thrill and dress up in the Herdmaster cape tonight

Posted by: windansea | February 08, 2007 at 04:20 PM

Realtime update. mrs hit and run is SNORING in the media room. No cape tonight.

I'm stuck here with the rerun of Greys Anatomy for the 2nd time. Why don't I change the channel? She's on the remote. Could I extract it? Hell, I'm not special forces material, especially after the bourbon AND beers.

[hit and run]

Thread Herder After Action Report

Adding Ignomy to Insult to Injury...

After the reckless and dangerous outing, I was contacted by Vanity Fair to do a photo shoot.

We made the arrangements, scheduled the shoot, settled on compensation, laid the groundrules for the accompanying interview and outlined the story.

They requested a headshot, which my publicist provided to them via email.

This morning I received word from my publicist that they have cancelled the photo shoot.

In their words, "Thread Herder's hair has been deemed insufficiently important".

Hopefully this thread is dead enough that no one will ever see this. Yet, the truth must be recorded for the sake of posterity.

[clarice]

I'm sorry to hear that h & r. I do recall that Vanity Fair also goes for shots of folks in pricey scarves and sunglasses. I'll lend you my foster grants and an old hermes scarf if you promist to take good care of them and promptly return them.

[clarice]

I'm sorry to hear that h & r. I do recall that Vanity Fair also goes for shots of folks in pricey scarves and sunglasses. I'll lend you my foster grants and an old hermes scarf if you promise to take good care of them and promptly return them.

[hit and run]

Clarice:
I'll lend you my foster grants and an old hermes scarf if you promist to take good care of them and promptly return them.

As much as I would like to accept, I think I owe it to you to be honest.

If you were to loan anything to me, I would keep it forever.

And sleep with it under my pillow at night ;-)

[Walter]

Some dozen posts ago:

azaghal - hey, there, I don't think we've been formerly introduced. I'm hit and run and I like your style. And substance. Oh, what substance. [...]

Posted by: hit and run | February 08, 2007 at 04:45 AM

[...] I'm starting to get confused again...

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
[...]
Posted by: Walter | February 08, 2007 at 06:30 AM

[...]
Good. ;-)
Posted by: Thread Herder | February 08, 2007 at 08:06 AM

Earlier this thread:

I had already outed myself to Walter on a previous thread anyway.

I love you all.

Posted by: hit and run | February 08, 2007 at 04:25 PM

Now I'm really confused.

[hit and run]

Why don't we discuss your confusion over drinks?

::wink::

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Link to 19 pages of Philip Agee's CIA Diary, here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CIA_Diary_Agee.html

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

I'll make a prediction. One way or another. IF this case goes to the jury, THEN Fitzgerald goes to the woodshed. (Or will the slaughter be noted, in book form, by Woodward?)

It's WOOD no matter which way you look.

And, I think Fitzgerald FOLDS. He's gonna claim "American Secrets" are more important to keep hidden, that Judge Walton's orders to "divulge."

No wonder people who read this blog are keeping their eyes peeled on Main Bloggers "tap-tap-tap" consisting of the LIVE STUFF going on inside the "fish tank" in Walton's courtroom.

If this was a restaurant? We'd be like customers looking into the fish tank, to pick out our dinner.

[james malcolm]

Great blog. Great information. But I'm still stuck with this.

Judge Walton says even he doesn't know whether Plame was covert or not.

He should find out by Monday.

If she was covert then someone, by now, should be on trial for outing her...and whether Libby obstructed the search for the outer would matter.

If she was not covert, then what business is it of Fitzgerald's what reporters and government officials say to one another over a non-criminal, purely political matter.

And shouldn't the jury be told this perjury case isn't about anything important.

Help???

Thank you, Jim Malcolm