Imus On Russert And Plame: "I Think He Knew"

At approximately 7:45 Am (Eastern) Don Imus talked to Frank Rich on his MSNBC Show today and picked up on the Libby trial where he left off yesterday, saying that thinks Tim Russert knew about Valerie Plame (or Wilson's wife) prior to the publication of the Novak column.

Imus's launching pad was that Andrea Mitchell's answers were comically evasive and unconvincing in November 2005 when she recanted her October 2003 statement that it was "widely known" amongst reporters following the Wilson/Niger story that Wilson wife was with the CIA.  (More on Mitchell here.) [And more - did you know that Colin Powell was a guest at Andrea's wedding to Alan Greenspan?  Dum de dum, why might she want to protect Powell or his good buddy Armitage, help me here... Hey, if she gives up Powell we can call Andrea "The Wedding Singer"].

He added that when he talks to David Gregory about the Plame situation Gregory seems very tense.

Imus could not imagine a motive for Russert to lie, however, and went on to say that in a credibility contest between Russert and Libby, he would choose Russert.

Well - as to Russert's motive, this post has more detail, but the summary is this - Russert started with a little white lie to the FBI in November 2003, with the objective of concealing the fact that he (or Andrea Mitchell) had a source for the Plame leak.  Russert did not "lie" to the investigators; he misled them with carefully phrased testimony so as to avoid subpoenas, jail time, and the disclosure of NBC News sources.

And it seemed like a little white lie at the time - Russert knew that Libby had not leaked to him, so he reasoned that his chat with Libby was not the sort of primary leak (government official *to* reporter) that investigators were seeking.

Russert maintained this charade with his deposition to the grand jury in June 2004, then blanched when he finally saw the indictment in October 2005 - the investigation had morphed from a search for leakers into a search for perjury and Russert had become a star witness.

The most trusted man in news did not think he could keep his job if he came forward and admitted that he had misled the Fitzgerald investigation for nearly two years, so he kept quiet and awaited developments.

And one of the developments was that subsequent court filings made it clear that no emails or notes existed at either the White House or at NBC to contradict his story.

So at the trial last week, when faced between (a) admitting that he had misled investigators for three years, probably losing his job and certainly foreclosing any future stories about Big Russ and the Catholic nuns who taught him in school, or (b) continuing the cover-up, Russert took the final plunge and lied.

That, at least, is my guess as to one hypothesis the defense will put forward in order to introduce reasonable doubt as to Russert's veracity.  Folks who think Libby lied to keep his low-paying government job and avoid embarrassment will surely be sympathetic to this alternative scenario where Russert had five million reasons a year to lie (Or more!  Or less - objection!).

As to whether it is true, how could I possibly know?  But the fact that Don Imus thinks something is fishy at NBC News is quite revealing - he does talk to these reporters frequently and prides himself on having a functional BS detector.

MORE:  We project dark matter impaction on whirling blades if the NBC lawyers try to muzzle Imus.

BLEG:  I wager we will see a transcript of that segment eventually, but sooner is better.  Maybe the MSNBC website has an audio (Let me check...).  I am not seeing it at the WFAN website in NY, not yet anyway (9:52 Eastern).  And the ImusBlog may deliver for us. Here we go:

New York Times columnist Frank Rich called in this morning. He gave us his take on the Libby trial. Starting with agreeing with almost everyone that Russert is telling the truth about his conversation with Scooter Libby.

Mr. Imus thinks Russert is telling the truth about the conversation but is lying about knowing Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Two minutes later Imus changed his mind and said Russert was not lying. Imus implied throughout the conversation with Rich that Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory were lying.

OK.  I would have said that "changed his mind" referred to believing Russert over Libby on their specific conversation, but that is part of the joy of radio - where is a darn transcript?

WHO CARES, BUT:  Frank Rich knows little about this trial bit he is a useful barometer for the conventional wisdom of the Bush-bashing left.  And he opined that the Plame outing was an accident and an over-reaction, not any sort of a plan to specifically expose her.  The Admin wanted to smear Wilson as a house-husband who needed his wife to get him a gig; in Rich's words, "they used a hammer to hit a flea".

Comments

[Pofarmer]

Except, if 2 changes, and we already have Russert saying that Mitchell would have told him if she knew, and we already know there were rumors swirling around...........

[clarice]

Apuzzo's latest is up--Mostly about Abramson
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/national/w072200S23.DTL>mauling Miller

[Pete]

Looks to me like the outing of super duper Val Plame lost us a very important player in dealing with Iran. Scooter Libby. Hmmm...new conspiracy theory coming up...

Well Scooter could not remember in the afternoon what he was briefed on in the morning.

Besides he has been replaced by the "The Year of Iran", so it is mission accomplished for the Iran war pushers.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

I think FireDogLake, with their snotty comments, is actually an attempt by those who selected these bloggers to "cover the trial live, along with the media;

IS the reason so many people are not tuning in.

I can tell that, except for here, where the action for JOM is causing the "site meter" to sky-rocket ...

The LACK of interest ... is due to the whole way the LEFT FIELD seems to cover this "game." And, Mainstream America ain't buying tickets.

HOWEVER, Drudge did run the headlines, yesterday, when the reporters, reported to the witness box. Perhaps, he's saving his siren for the "END OF GAME" results?

But if you want to know where most of the people are? They're not listening.

They're also not impressed with the way the media, and the new "majority" in congress goes after our military troops! Just you wait. Payback time's a bitch. With better teeth than Andrea Mitchell's.

[Dan S]

sbw,

There are WAY more bracketed editorializing snarky remarks now that earlier. It's an indicator of some sort.

I mean more than an indicator that EW is the snarky lib sort.

[clarice]

former Senator Fred Thompson blasts Fitz. He was instrumental in allowing the independent counsel Statute to lapse:
"There was "no brake and no check and no balance at all as he pursued his job and as the press was expecting him to return something for all this money and effort that he was putting out and, of course, he didn't disappoint him," criticized Thompson.

"He turned out to be a fella who can see miles and miles in a straight line, but had no peripheral vision at all and didn't realize apparently that he was caught up in a bureaucratic political dogfight."
________

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2869909&page=2>Law & Order

[Christopher Fotos]

How did the Washington Post know by last night at least that Andrea would not testify--when the judge reversed himself this am?

I may have missed something in the last 50 comments--but I don't believe they did. I blogged about this yesterday. Goldstein/Leonnig put up a story at 5:22 pm, saying Mitchell would not testify. They got it wrong as of that moment--by the end of the day according to the liveblogging and end of day summaries, Walton & Wells or whoever agreed to the Mitchell testimony absent the jury, to decide whether this would be admissable.

And not so incidentally, today's WapO print-version story has nothing about Mitchell one way or the other (at least in my copy, and the online version I blogged last night)

As a final aside and as I blogged, as of last night the Post overwrote that 5:22 version, using that link to point to the Tuesday version.

Who knows what the links point to now. It can be pretty random over there. As I said yesterday, if a government agency disappeared documents like that, it would be a scandal.

[Jane]

Soylent is off to basic training this week

He's my hero.

[Appalled Moderate]

TM:

Time for an update. Imus blog has spoken, inconclusively...:

New York Times columnist Frank Rich called in this morning. He gave us his take on the Libby trial. Starting with agreeing with almost everyone that Russert is telling the truth about his conversation with Scooter Libby.

Mr. Imus thinks Russert is telling the truth about the conversation but is lying about knowing Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Two minutes later Imus changed his mind and said Russert was not lying. Imus implied throughout the conversation with Rich that Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory were lying. You can read more about this in these posts, here, here, and in this post. This has potential to be a big story if it turns out there was some lying going on at NBC. The question is, who will have the guts to investigate it?

[PeterUK]

"Martin, on the off chance Typepad has finally cleaned things up, I would like to take this opportunity to mention that you're a dick."

Except that a dick is useful.

[hit and run]

Clarice:
Perhaps when this is over we can script a Comic opera version of this.

::waves hand::

Oh, I want a piece of that action.

[hit and run]

Clarice:
Perhaps when this is over we can script a Comic opera version of this.

::waves hand::

Oh, I want a piece of that action.

[hit and run]

Can the actor playing Jack Bauer's dad on 24 be cast as Joe Wilson?

[sbw]

Senator Fred Thompson blasts Fitz.

That? From a man who just might be running for President? My goodness! I haven't seen principle like that in a presidential contender for a long time.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: CLARICE

Now that I see that Ted Wells calmly explained to Walton that he'd let the Mitchell "thing" 'REST ON THE RECORD,' he has just flagged Walton that, yes, LIBBY APPEALS.

So, if Walton thinks he is "rescued" by higher-ups in the Federal judicial food chain, I think he is mistaken.

I think what Walton "adds" though, to the 2008 mix, is that it's going to be a wide-open-question again, about letting donks into the White House. Given the crap we tend to get with judicial appointments, anyway. Who would want to give Hillary free reign?

Does Walton get it? He is sitting on all those affirmative action rules that has pissed off most of mainstream America. Like Kofe Anan, from Africa. Getting into a very high job, and picking up the ladder from the ground so it doesn't benefit blacks. It even ends career opportunism.

That's just my opinion. And, yes, there are old people on the Supremes. Bush will also get to nominate others;

And, the angrier the public gets? The easier to "go conservative." Or to let congress-critters hang themselves. The jury's still out on Iraq, where they are concerned, as well.

Given that some horses only run well on solid ground, a muddy field may actually be an advantage GOP.

Let alone, how Walton has to worry that Wells gets him, coming or going.

[clarice]

sbw, I do wish he'd run, don't you?

[Tom Maguire]

if you want an easier train of inference, call Gregory. Based on the prosecution's own witness, we know he had heard about Val.

I think some have trouble distinguishing between what might be a good idea in a trial from stuff it would be cool to know.

Well, it would be cool to know if Mitchell and Russert are conspiring to save Russert's job and Colin Powell's rep. And relevant to the trial, as well.

As to Gregory, who heard (or didn't) on the 11th in Africa while America slept - Libby was hazy as to time, but *thought* he talked to Rove in the afternoon of the 10th or 11th - that must be the afternoon of the 10th because Rove was gone for vacation after a morning in the office leaking to Cooper on the 11th.

BUT! He was unsure in his testimony (there aren't many windows and day runs into night...), so maybe Gregory heard on the 11th, contacted Russert, Russert talked to Libby, Libby talked to Rove, and here we are.

Mitchell is a lot easier, since she could have learned anytime.

Love the wedding singer tip - she mentions it in her book, and I modified the post to pick it up.

[BarbaraS]

Put Armitage on the stand. Ask him if he told Mitchell and when he told her. It had to be before July 20, 2003 because she said he wasn't answering her calls after that. I do not understand this trial at all. I thought (in my naive way) that a defendant could call anyone he wanted to if they were connected to the case. Apparently not. Walton seems to be clueless. He is is so wraped in the law that he ignores justice. It is rephensible for him not to allow Mitchell on the stand. Does this mean that Russert's testimony is not allowed to be questioned at all?

[Jane]

Here is what is interesting about Thompson's piece at ABC News - the heading:

Law & Order' Senator Rips Libby Trial Tactics

Now wouldn't you think he was dissing the Libby team after reading that headline.

The MSM never quits.

[Cecil Turner]

If you're looking for an alternative, Professor Kim ain't half bad. (FDL is a bit more detailed, mostly--but PK actually adds some detail in spots--and it's nicely organized with no editorial snark.)

Hannah supported Libby's memory defense to the hilt, BTW, and only Prof Kim's version brings that out.

[centralcal]

Cecil, I agree with you on Prof Kim.

[politicaobscura]

Has Firedoglake gone insane???

"Year of Iran" silliness? Wow, what a whack job...

[Molon Labe]

Why should admission of potential evidence be conditioned on whether or not a defendant testifies?

Fitz seems to be arguing that certain evidence is unfair because it weakens his case.

[Ralph L.]

Does anyone know if Thompson's acting persona reflects his real one? He seems like such a solid, tough guy, but is he?

[Appalled Moderate]

Cecil:

This from Prof Kim is fascinating

Hannah said Libby had an "awful memory." He said that there were times when he presented his analysis of issue to him in the morning, only to have Libby repeat the same analysis to him "six or seven hours later" with no memory that the information had first come from Hannah.

I think those of us who work in information businesses have had this sort of thing happen to us.

[clarice]

He was one of the first to sign on to the Libby defense fund. In this town of weak livered liars, that makes him a good guy in my book.

[clarice]

He was one of the first to sign on to the Libby defense fund. In this town of weak livered liars, that makes him a good guy in my book.

[clarice]

He was one of the first to sign on to the Libby defense fund. In this town of weak livered liars, that makes him a good guy in my book.

[Sue]

with no memory that the information had first come from Hannah.

It happens here all the time. ::grin::

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: MOLON LABE

Yesterday, the judge let the NBC lawyer sit in the back row and BlackBerry. It's pretty odd that the court's marshal didn't walk over and at least shake his finger at this dude.

So when you asked:

"Mitchell's testimony would go directly to attacking Russert's construction.

I do not understand why she is not allowed to testify."

YOUR ANSWER IS: Walton and NBC are in bed together. That's my opinion, of course.

[bethl]

It is of course our first assumption that the wapo got the story yesterday about Mitchell testifying wrong---after all they have been pretty wrong on much of this case----but this is a few days after the feith fiasco and wouldn't they be in a more careful mode at least for a while. I think they knew somehow.

[Cecil Turner]

Where's the memory expert (on commonality of misattribution) when you need him? Hmm, maybe we don't need him:

Questions from Judge Walton about Libby's memory lapses. Hannah said Libby remembered arguments well, but sometimes forgot where the arguments came from.

Hannah: "It's hard. This kind of thing that I just described was a very regular pattern with Scooter. But he was very good at remembering his own arguments, key facts, key points that he wanted to make."

[Jane]

I think those of us who work in information businesses have had this sort of thing happen to us.

I swear it is a function of age, but I actually recall that we have discussed this before.

I'm fairly shocked at the level of unprofessionalism in FDL's reporting. I bet someone thinks twice about giving them credentials the next time around. It does appear to be a response to how the trial is going.

Tee hee.

[Ralph L.]

Clarice, I guess you're a fan, thrice over.

[Skip]

I think the 'Year in Iran' stuff is to try and cut down on their bandwidth usage. I mean, I know that I went there this morning, and didn't go back.

[centralcal]

I am with Clarice. I would love for Thompson to run. He'd have my vote.

[politicaobscura]

Re: memory....

Just this morning I blew my stack because someone I work with spoke to the Washington Post on an issue I rather not have had discussed.... interestingly, I had forgotten that two weeks ago I had another staffer talk to this same reporter on an issue that was semi-related... had someone asked me this AM if I had EVER had a discussion about a staffer calling Reporter X, I would have said "no"... and I would have been wrong...

That is why this trial is so stupid...

[centralcal]

P.A.: Has firedoglake gone insane?....nope, they have always been insane.

[clarice]

Enough already , Sue..:wink:

Typepad is not my friend today,Ralph.

[centralcal]

P.A. - you asked if firedoglake had gone insane? They have always been insane.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: HIGH COTTON

Wow. Can you imagine, if true, what holding IOU paper from Greenspan is worth?

[sammy small]

Has Firedoglake gone insane???

"Year of Iran" silliness? Wow, what a whack job...

Don't you know that its time to create the next conspiracy theory for the lefties. This one should carry them for at least a year.

[centralcal]

jeez, first it eats my post and hangs up on me. then I type it again and both versions appear.

do we have gremlins???

[Pete]

In this town of weak livered liars

You forgot to mention the chickenhawks as well.

[Sue]

They're getting all the benefit of having said it, there's no witness with state of mind Libby has, they're getting all the upside. It's a bait and switch. Here's how we get past 403, bc he's testifying, but now he's not testifying.

Did Fitz's earlier argument bit him on the butt? Why, yes, I believe it did.

Cline Talking about general introduction of this. Your honor permitted articles, because he read them, he was focused on 16 words, these are inferences govt wanted to draw. We want to counter it. We ought to be able to show, overload, inundation

[hit and run]

Thread Herder once again, from beyond the grave...

New Thead Alert

No! False Alarm. Non-Plame thread.

[Sue]

Enough already , Sue..:wink:

I wasn't sure you would remember. ::grin::

just kidding

[Sue]

I bet someone thinks twice about giving them credentials the next time around.

Ya' think? The crowd roars when she posts those snide little comments. She'll be back. ::grin::

[Cecil Turner]

This from Prof Kim is fascinating

Concur. I laughed out loud at this:

I think those of us who work in information businesses have had this sort of thing happen to us.

Ya think? Reminiscent of anyone else? Perhaps that memorable little bit about Judith Wilson reading a reporter's questions out of her notebook and misattributing them to the source? (wish I could find it again).

I also remember working with several senior officers who tended to remember the talking points, but not the concept behind them, and spout them at inappropriate times (applying them to different subjects). I used to think they were particularly dizzy, but as I get a little older . . .

[centralcal]

Next conspiracy? Nah, they like to recycle old conspiracies (c'mon, lefties NEVER do anything new, only rehash.)

I listened to the tape of Imus telephone conversation with David Schuster's twin brother, Craig Crawford this morning. After Imus made his statement of something funny going on with Russert, Mitchell, and Gregory and their discussion on that, Craig mumbo jumbo'd about all this leading back to Cheney, and how there is enough to impeach him, and high crimes and misdemeanors, and yadda, yadda, yadda.

[Tom Maguire]

Can the actor playing Jack Bauer's dad on 24 be cast as Joe Wilson?

Too old, too slim, and too quiet.

OK, I put the Imus blog version in.

Re this:

Mr. Imus thinks Russert is telling the truth about the conversation but is lying about knowing Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Two minutes later Imus changed his mind and said Russert was not lying. I

I think that is what I described as saying he believed Russert over Libby but I would want to see a transcript. I do agree with the sequence provided above - Imus said Russert was truthful about the conversation, lying about not knowing Plame, then he came back a moment or two later and added he believes Russert over Libby.

[Rick Ballard]

Ralph L.,

Thompson's votes and positions as a Senator were consonant with aspects of the characters that he portrayed. I've often thought that he did not remain in the Senate because of the lack of leadership and spine displayed by Lott and then Frist. Sort of the same rationale that Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey and John Breaux (to a much lesser extent) applied in leaving the other side of the aisle.

[clarice]

Yeah, pete, as I understand it the latest leftist pitch is anyone for the war is either a chicken hawk (if he's not in the service) or a mercenary (if he is)..Therefore, the only ones with "moral authority" , are those opposed to it,Got it. Somehow, I find that unpersuasive.

[Carol Herman]

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: PETER IN THE UK

Ah, that's why Yiddish beats out English when describing dick heads. Better to know that Martin is a putz.

While a useful dick can be a schmuck.

[vnjagvet]

Bingo, Cecil. Being "helpful" to the court is one of the tests of the admissiblity of expert testimony.

Getting an expert to testify about "typical" behavior is only marginally helpful to a jury in a case like this.

What is ultimately helpful is finding out how the actual parties to the conduct in question (in this case testimony before the FBI and Grand Jury) behaved and why they behaved that way.

Hannah's pithy testimony about Libby's peculiar memory quirks is most helpful to the court and ultimately to Libby.

And it is far more persuasive to a jury than a "bought and paid for" expert.

[Ralph L.]

Cheney impressed me when he cancelled one of his own, long-standing pet projects in 1991. It probably did not endear him to Langley, either. Plus, he had the good sense to dislike my former boss, who deservedly lost his security clearance in summer of 89. I didn't "question the timing" until much later.

[ARC: Brian]

Once again, I'm interested in seeing the Juror questions. Although I think nothing can be read into them too much. Juries are surprising after all.

From FDL:
Walton Aside from Libby's difficulty with memory did it lead him to have concerns about his effectiveness?

and
TYOI He was quite good at remembering ideas and concepts, very bad at figuring out where they came from, how they came to him.

Walton Would Libby deny that you had informed him of these things

TYOI Never

and

Walton Sec Issues every shortchanged by Libby bc of schedule

TYOI That woudl be unfair criticism. Anybody who worked at these kinds of levels, to get through inbox is a real luxury, to stay ahead of the curve, I'd say he managed as well not only in Nat Sec affairs, as well as any other boss I've worked for [better than Cheney?]

I've read them 3 times now, and I can't tell if this is good news or bad news for Libby.

[Jane]

I also remember working with several senior officers who tended to remember the talking points, but not the concept behind them, and spout them at inappropriate times (applying them to different subjects). I used to think they were particularly dizzy, but as I get a little older . . .

I do that all the time - here. Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind it's all tidy and clear. I am completely confident in what I know. But then, I can no longer get it to come out properly or I find I forgot what it was I wanted to say, or even what I thought I knew.

That's why I am so adament about having jurors over age 50 - cause that is when it starts for most people.

TBH I don't think it happens the same way to everyone. Clarice still has a steel trap mind it seems. I used to, but I no longer do, and life got a lot easier once I started to realize that.

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

I've found the stainless steel colander that the trap became to be of reasonable utility. I sure agree about jurors over fifty.

[Jim]

Hello As an avid follower of this site would it be possible for some of the main players to give us readers a little bio/profile of your background and experience. This site is really awesome.

I’ve already read about Clarice on American Thinker and her information and comments are really great.
(PS. Martin - this does not include you because being as sensitive as I can be…..you’re an idiot.

[Sara (Squiggler]

Please OtherTom-I know your type-broke down alcoholic lawyer with kids that don't call and a mean ugly wife.

So Martin, are you a cop? The "I know your type" is typical cop talk.

Fess up or admit that you are just an ignorant and abusive envious little man.

[boris]

Thompson's votes and positions as a Senator were consonant with aspects of the characters that he portrayed.

Probably because he was typecaset based on a real life legal role in Watergate IIRC. The Movies came to Fred and said "we want you to play a character with the presence we noticed on TV during the hearings!"

[Ralph L.]

My 53 y.o. boss keeps claiming he's told me certain details, and about half the time he hasn't.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

BEWARE THE BOOK MONSTERS THAT COME DOWN THE PIKE!

Here? I'd bet that Greenspan, knowing the value of a dollar, not only stopped Andrea Mitchell from being called back to the stand; he also is encouraging her to write a book about it.

SO down the pike? Andrea has the goods on Russert. Unlike Mary Mapes, who attacked Black Rock's upper management, Andrea can sing and dance about how it wasn't Russert that needed to be protected; but NBC's cash cow: MTP.

Russert's gonna fly out of his comfy $5-million dollar chair, I'll bet.

And, Ancrea Mitchell OWNS Greenspan's balls. NBC won't touch her. They may, however, give her Russert's old chair? What a bargain.

Once this clown show is over; there are gonna be plenty of stories. Not subject to Walton's will and whims, either.

[highcotton]

Ralph, Al Gore was hatched here in Tennessee, but he was raised in D.C. It's a strong argument for environment playing a larger role than heredity. (Not that his gene pool wasn't pretty suspect, too....)

Al's a local joke, but Fred Thompson is highly respected. He's a politician, but he's still a pretty straight-shooter. And unless he were in a private conference with Cheney, he would nearly always be in the running for smartest guy in the room.

Unlike Al, he definitely *would* carry his home state. But his daughter died several years ago, and the personal tragedy seemed to zap all his political ambition. (That's why he retired from the Senate.) Maybe time has helped heal that wound, though. IMO he'd be a terrific VP nominee.

[Christopher Fotos]

It is of course our first assumption that the wapo got the story yesterday about Mitchell testifying wrong---after all they have been pretty wrong on much of this case----but this is a few days after the feith fiasco and wouldn't they be in a more careful mode at least for a while. I think they knew somehow.

Well, anything is possible, but based on what? Essentially no matter what they wrote they had a 50-50 chance of getting it right.

The accounts, the liveblogging from various sources at the time, plainly said Walton arranged the dry-run testimony for the next day. Their story published today has nothing about Mitchell--it could have been space, but it's possible they figured out they were wrong or confused. This morning commenced with a revived discussion about whether Mitchell would testify wherein the Libby team said they wouldn't call her.

That doesn't track in my opinion, and yes, their record in reporting the admittedly Byzantine developments tilts the already tilting scale--in my opinion.

[hit and run]

My 53 y.o. boss keeps claiming he's told me certain details, and about half the time he hasn't.

Posted by: Ralph L. | February 13, 2007 at 10:02 AM

I keep telling my 51 year old boss he hasn't told me things, when he has, because I haven't gotten around to completing them yet.

(I BLAME ALL OF YOU FOR THAT, BY THE WAY!)

[SunnyDay]

EW's snark is increasing. Frustration I guess, but it's pretty juvenile for an attorney. I looked for someone else giving a "play by play" minus the commentary, but no luck. Too bad.

I do believe Walton has got it now. He's going to let the MIB's in even though Libby isn't testifying. And we still haven't heard from Eckinrode.

One of the aids who comes to take care of Mom is a staunch Bush hater. I had Rush on when she showed up the other day. She has taken it on herself to enlighten me - she rushes through taking care of Mom so she can lecture me on Bush's failures. She made a mess out of changing Mom's bed linens - I had to do it over. grrrrrrrrr.

These folks who are so consumed with BDS cannot do anything without inserting their mental obsessions into it.

[Cecil Turner]

I do agree with the sequence provided above - Imus said Russert was truthful about the conversation, lying about not knowing Plame . . .

I think he's right, too. (I also think the same about Pincus's rendition of the Fleischer conversation.)

And it is far more persuasive to a jury than a "bought and paid for" expert.

Concur, especially if it strikes a resonant chord in a couple of the older jurors.

I've read them 3 times now, and I can't tell if this is good news or bad news for Libby.

Read Prof Kim's version. She quoted parts of that (apparently verbatim) and it hangs together better. Looks like unqualified good news for Libby, to me.

[clarice]

Thanks, Jane, but once upon a time I could tell you the page and line of the transcript something appeared in and todayI can hardly remember what day it is.
If I remember a lot about this matter, it is only because I've focused so hard on it and continually reviewed it.

[Ralph L.]

I don't remember Thompson from the hearings. One of my 7th grade P.S. teachers watched them in class while we goofed off. I was sent to private school the next year.

Perhaps F.T. is a believer in term limits, which I hope the Republicans will resuscitate.

[Cecil Turner]

Y'know, the more I think about this . . . Wells oughta call Christopher Dickey:

For some reason none of us had a tape recorder, so on the flight back to Casablanca we compared our notes from the one interview we’d had with a Moroccan general a few hours before. We wanted to be sure the phrases we’d scribbled down were accurate. But there was a problem. Judy had many more quotes in her notebook than I and another reporter had in ours. And Judy’s were much better. Then I realized why. I’d done a lot more homework on that particular story than she did, and I was asking much more detailed questions. She’d written them down, and now she thought they came from the general, but many of the quotes actually were from … me.

Makes the misattribution point well, as well as impeaching Judith's notes.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Prof Kim is a GIGANTIC IMPROVEMENT over the idiots at FireDogLaKE. Too bad Maine Blogger went home. "Should'a been reversed."

At Prof Kim's site, it seems the court will be "dark to us" for the entire afternoon.

But he did end his own comments with the "cross" from the prosecution, of Jill Abramson.

Abramson testified for the Defense that she didn't "hear" Miller ever "ask for the Wilson story, for herself, to cover."

So Fit'z "bonamitchi" asks Abramson: "Did you ever tune Miller out."

Yup, sez da boss lady. And, the media room erupted in laughter.

Gosh darn it, Fitz can't make a closing seam out of this schmata. He's gonna have to hang rags. And, hope the Bush haters call it a dress.

While Frank Rich, now, is saying "it's about nothing?" There's no "there, there," folks. Kurtz has also bowed out of blaming Libby for "stealing" the mad hat. No leaks. No need for buckets. No need for this trial. And, the ACME PURGERY TRAP failed to catch even one person.

Walton? Good luck to him looking like a reasonable man when this trial meets the bookstores.

[Jane]

Clarice,

I understand that too. No matter how you look at it, it ain't easy getting older.

[nittypig]

But it sure beats the alternative.

[Molon Labe]

Might not the FDL snark provide a basis for "established" MSM news sources to object to future access for bloggers at these venues?

[SunnyDay]

...whether Mitchell would testify wherein the Libby team said they wouldn't call he

Sometimes I suspect that defense throws things into this, just to make Fitz team run around doing unnecessary stuff.

Is there an out-psyching aspect of a good defense? As in Wells is messing with Fitz's head a little?

Sort of "if the judge OK's it, we can do it if we want to, if he doesn't, it'll serve another purpose.

[owl]

Wow. I think we have witnessed real power on display. The courts jumped through hoops to keep Powell's name from being uttered and now they keep out the one person that many of us actually watched as she said that 'everyone knew'. She was tied to Wilson/Armitage/Russert. Wow.

[sbw]

Clarice: sbw, I do wish he'd run, don't you?

Hmmm. Glenn Reynolds shows, in alphabetical order, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, George Pataki, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Mark Sanford, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson in the Pajamas media poll. Fred has 12.7% behind Rudy, Newt, and Mitt. He's a contender in my book. A finalist, even.

I wish he'd run. Go vote.

[Ralph L.]

I hadn't heard about Thompson's daughter. What ever he does, we won't have an Al Gore's family drama moment with him.

The kind of person who really wants to be President and is willing to do what it takes these days, sensible people wouldn't want near the office.

I had a "Submit Query" button instead of a Post one last time. I don't like being bossed around on a blog.

[Jeff Z]

I appreciate so much all the effort that people are putting into reporting and analyzing this trial in matters far beyond my expertise, but there are two matters I know a tiny bit about:

1) The "memory expert," i.e., anyone with a BS or above in Experimental Psychology, is what would truly destroy this case. Talk about pseudo-science! J. Miller's sudden and detailed recovered memory of the June 23 meeting is preposterous. The Judge may as well allow divination by reading bird entrails or perhaps a trial by ordeal. Not that Miller is lying; she probably does have the memory, but after all the stress, pressure, and misery she has been through, it is a combination of other meetings with Libby, the conscious mind trying to make sense of fragmetary data, and the subconscious mind's fulfilling its wish (Freud's definition of dreaming). No person with any education in this field could take Miller's testimony seriously. The mind just doesn't work that way. It's not that one doesn't have sudden long-forgotten memories by an unexpected stimulus, but nowhere near in the detail and complexity that Miller described.

2) Ease off on Martin (whom I disagree with on everything else)RE: Other Tom. He's goofing around. This is a pretty heterogenous crew, but in many (male) circles Martin's comments are affectionate and respectful.

[azaghal]

I'm with highcotton: Fitz' case is imploding so the fix is in to spare Mitchell further public embarrassment.

[Sara (Squiggler]

This is a pretty heterogenous crew, but in many (male) circles Martin's comments are affectionate and respectful.

I guess a man is never too old to play the "mine is bigger than yours" game. I thought mature men left that behind in their locker room days. Silly me.

[Jane]

I'm with highcotton: Fitz' case is imploding so the fix is in to spare Mitchell further public embarrassment.

I can't figure out what the first has to do with the second. And boy as a trial lawyer, I'd never back down because the opponant's case is imploding. Let them withdraw the complaint. Until my client is free and clear, the hell with "Mitchell's embarrassment". This isn't a game, it's a person's freedom.

[Other Tom]

Interpreting jurors' questions is about the murkiest of the murky arts of trial practice. While I have thought their questions before today were encouraging for the defense, I thought today's were a little bit ominous. I'd be interested to hear the thinking of those who had the opposite impression.

Meantime, it's just past 10:30 a.m. here in sunny SoCal, and I gotta go out and get those first couple of Martinis under my belt. Forgive me if my speech starts to slur in a little while.

[ARC: Brian]

Thanks Cecil. That helped...

[Ralph L.]

I agree on both points. Some of Miller's convoluted theoreticals were the kinds of things you wouldn't forget doing, unless you were constantly diabolical. Completely preposterous.

[Jack is Back!]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

BEWARE THE BOOK MONSTERS THAT COME DOWN THE PIKE!

The heck with AM and her book promotion by AG - what I am waiting for is the book that is co-authored by TM, Jane, Clarice, et. al. that finally explains what the heck this has been about. This whole caper, investigation, trial and coverage is so tightly wound is like a pin prick of light on the moon. In fact, the only people that really understand the mystique and mystery of Plame/Libby have DC plates. If you have even Maryland or Viginia plates your really not that well informed or interested. [ I take that back - the only ones who are really interested and understand this don't have cars only monthly metro passes.]

[Ralph L.]

I was referring to Jeff Z above.

[verner]

Highcotton: You are 100% right about Fred. There was a time when he wanted to run, but now he doesn't seem interested. I think he would be a winner for the VP slot though.

Here is Sen. Thompson's money quote from ABC:

"Fitzgerald "turned out to be a fellow who can see miles and miles in a straight line, but had no peripheral vision at all and didn't realize apparently that he was caught up in a bureaucratic political dogfight," said Thompson."

In other words, he should have paid a little more attention to the game that was being played around the Wilsons. He didn't. At all.

Now the defense has it's turn, and the jury gets to see that not only "everybody knows", but that a) Libby wasn't the one talking to reporters and b) just about every prosecution witness has "memory" problems.

All Wells has to do for his "memory' defense is read from the transcripts of the prosecution's witnesses--who needs an expert from Harvard!

Jeez, I wish Walton would just end this fiasco. There is no way that anyone with good conscience could claim that Libby is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[azaghal]

I can't figure out what the first has to do with the second. And boy as a trial lawyer, I'd never back down because the opponant's case is imploding. Let them withdraw the complaint. Until my client is free and clear, the hell with "Mitchell's embarrassment". This isn't a game, it's a person's freedom.

Posted by: Jane | February 13, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Wells isn't backing down. Walton is making an acommodation (sp?) for Mitchell based on his perception that Fitz will lose anyway. If Walton is wrong and Libby gets convicted on the Russert count, then Wells is set to appeal, but Walton did what he could. That's the theory, anyway.

[maryrose]

"The fix is in to prevent Mitchell from further embarassment"
Reporters have to be held accountable for what they say and write. There are no take -backs{Mitchell on Imus} or do overs. Mitchell is not above the law no matter who her hubby is or what connection she has to Colin Powell{like Voldemort, he who can't be named}. She's great for an appeal case but I want her under oath telling everyone she was drunk when she made the statement"everyone in the loop knows"

[Sara (Squiggler]

Adviser Details Libby's 'Awful' Memory...

[Sara (Squiggler]

Adviser Details Libby's 'Awful' Memory...

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Walton has a cold.

Fitz is trying to keep out (because of previous stipulation) that Wells can't enter anything about Plame's status.

Good discussion going on at FREE REPUBLIC. I can't turn this into a link. But if you copy and paste this into your browser; you'll see what I see.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1784023/posts

[Ralph L.]

Thompson was much too charitable to Fitz.
Compare Fitz's to Starr's environment. Bush really is the Anti-Clinton.

[hit and run]

I want to say hi to verner, but am afraid of posting an OT comment. I hope she knows I'm glad to see her, even if I exercise restraint and do not say it out loud to her.

[clarice]

We're all glad to see verner again.

[Jane]

Wells isn't backing down. Walton is making an acommodation (sp?) for Mitchell based on his perception that Fitz will lose anyway.

azaghal,

That's a bad thing for a Judge to do in a high profile case. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but with all these eyes on Walton, he'd be nuts to be making "an accomodation".

Being able to win on appeal just gets you back to a retrial and many more years of this stuff hanging over Libby's head. It's better than sustaing a conviction, but no where on my top ten list of outcomes.

[mark c.]

That Martin's a real funny guy. not ha-ha funny,though.