Powered by TypePad

« Russert, Semi-Live | Main | If I Were Defending The Hire Of Two Feminist Bloggers... »

February 07, 2007

Comments

Jane

You know it will be interesting to see how NBC handles this Russert Fiasco. Russert promised and interview with brian Williams when he was done testifying so it will be interesting to see if it comes up. Unless it gets worse tomorrow, or Gawd forbid the MSM picks it up, my guess is that it will be ignored.

I just hope Well's office staff are banging the keys tonite, asking for a remedy for Russert's lie. And whatever the remedy is should include an inquiry into Fitz' participation in the sham.

Of course I'm tired so I may be over reacting.

Jane

Transcript of 22 minute "interview" with Russert, on August 7, 2004, was produced to the defense.

Is it a real transcript, or a CIA type transcript?

Enlightened

Notes Lost - FBI notes of Russert special arrangement meeting at his office in lieu of GJ appearance?

Seixon

Shuster claimed, with a straight face, that Libby claimed he learned about Plame "not from Vice President Cheney" but from Russert.

Shuster is unstoppable!

roanoke

Sue-
Sad but true.

tina-

You know there is a poster that comes by every so often- Maid Marion that sits in the courtroom.

Maybe she'll come by and clear it up-if she got a seat.

It was supposedly packed.

Thomas H. Ryan

From the Huffington Post:

"Tim Russert hobbled into the courtroom this afternoon on crutches. When he left the stand at the end of the day (slated to return for more cross-examination tomorrow) his credibility had been so hobbled that is needed a pair of crutches of its own. . . ."

There will be a lot of confused viewers out there if things don't unfold according to script.

james

Cycloptichorn

There is a difference between forgetting that an event happened, and completely inventing a new event which just happens to provide cover for you in a crime.

You seem not to have followed this case too closely. There was no crime, and hence nothing to need cover for.

As for a new event, it may be he recalled the conservation but mistook who he had it with.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

WOW! I caught that Wells would "prefer" Monday. (He said that once before. But I didn't recognize it as the 12th.)

And, HE'S ANNOUNCING TO THE JUDGE HE'S FILING LOTS OF STUFF. How large a packet is a RULE 29? And, what ELSE is about to be filed?

I've never seen such efficiency as WELL's has when it comes to delivering stuff to court.

And, ya know what? If Cheney is watching this at home? He misses Libby! (Because Libby can help his own attorney.) And, boy. More beautiful papers have never flown out so quickly.)

THAT was Libby's talent! When the OVP was asked; Libby delivered. WOWZA.

windansea

FBI Notes of interview with Russert are MIA

FBI Report of interview with Russert was produced to defense

thank you! In Cbolt we trust

roanoke

cboldt-

Transcript of 22 minute "interview" with Russert, on August 7, 2004, was produced to the defense.

Any idea when we can get our hands on that?

I was hoping that if it was read from today that it would be admitted as an exhibit-but there are no exhibits listed from the Defense thus far at the AP site.

If something was read to Russert does it have to be admitted as an exhibit?

Charlie (Colorado)

Shuster and Matthews

What name could we come up with for that dynamic duo?

Assholes?

windansea

From the Huffington Post:

that is huge...Ariana got HamsterWheel their trial passes...I think I'll take a look and see if the Lake is perturbed..

Pete

You seem not to have followed this case too closely. There was no crime, and hence nothing to need cover for.

How do you know there was no crime?

As for a new event, it may be he recalled the conservation but mistook who he had it with.

With this logic - Clinton did not perjure himself. He just mistook the other woman for his wife. And while we are at it, lets make perjury legal because every perjurious statement could be a mis-statement.

pete

First Lt. Ehren Watada and his lawyers kicked some fascist butt today. Thank you Ehren you are a true American hero.

Charlie (Colorado)

I don't have a problem with FDL but it's a little too echo-chambery for me.

Wow.

You should write for The Simpsons.

Sara (Squiggler)

OT but a little levity to lighten the day.

I Think I Would Have Noticed If Iran Had Offered to Recognize Israel...
windansea

nope :)

roanoke

Charlie(Colorado)-

Shuster and Matthews

What name could we come up with for that dynamic duo?

Assholes?

ROFL!

roanoke

Oh great now I am one! Forgot to close the tag.

Rick Ballard

Enlightened

Cycloptichorn

"There is a difference between forgetting that an event happened, and completely inventing a new event which just happens to provide cover for you in a crime."


I'm guessing you meant Joe Wilson forgetting he validated Iraq's uranium procurement in 1999, and hence invented the New Event of claiming the WH outed his super secret spy wife to cover his crime of a bogus trip and bogus documentation in 2002?

pete

Wow even Pete (uppercase p) is jumping ship.

Cycloptichorn

James -

'You seem not to have followed this case too closely. There was no crime, and hence nothing to need cover for.'

I try to avoid making assertions like this as if they were facts.

The truth is that it has not been determined whether or not there was a crime committed, and most certainly they didn't know at the time whether or not people were going to be charged with crimes for Plame's outing.

'As for a new event, it may be he recalled the conservation but mistook who he had it with.'

Maybe, but you must remember that this is a critical point of Libby's defense: that the first time he could clearly remember hearing Plame's name and put it in context was with Russert. Now, we have not only seen several people testify that Libby discussed the name with him before he said he 'learned it again,' Russert has testify that he didn't tell Libby in that conversation. This cuts to the heart of Libby's defense.

Once Libby is on the stand, we'll see these questions cleared up a little better. I don't plan on getting any work done that day...

james

pete

How do you know there was no crime?

That's a deep question there, petey. I don't know that you are not a serial-killer, as far as that goes.

Lets just say that nobody has been charged with a crime with respect to outing any top-secret agents. Either there was no such crime, or Fitz is part of a neocon cabal aimed at covering the crime up.

Cycloptichorn

Enlightened -

'
I'm guessing you meant Joe Wilson forgetting he validated Iraq's uranium procurement in 1999, and hence invented the New Event of claiming the WH outed his super secret spy wife to cover his crime of a bogus trip and bogus documentation in 2002?'

I don't have any knowledge as to whether this is true or not. Can you provide a link for me?

Cheers

Enlightened

First Lt. Ehren Watada - The new Cindy Sheehan of the blithering idiot brigades.

windansea

Once Libby is on the stand

ain't gonna happen pal

centralcal

For me, this is the most important exchange of the day:

"Wells: You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?

Russert: I did not state her name, no."

Russert demonstrated today that he could answer questions with a simple "No." But here, his "no" has to be qualified with (an artfully rehearsed?) specific lead in. The Maine blogger notes Russert's annoying habit of moralizing, but this qualification of a simple no answer is not moralizing.

Is Russert lying by telling A truth, rather than telling THE truth. Wells, may or may not move on and let this go. I hope the jury has noted it, and why wouldn't they? It sticks out like a sore thumb. It didn't fit the context of the question, which made it even more odd.

Why is Russert lying? What is his motivation?


Cycloptichorn

'

Once Libby is on the stand

ain't gonna happen pal
'

You don't think Wells will put Libby on the stand?

Alcibiades

From the Huffington Post:

"Tim Russert hobbled into the courtroom this afternoon on crutches. When he left the stand at the end of the day (slated to return for more cross-examination tomorrow) his credibility had been so hobbled that is needed a pair of crutches of its own. . . ."

LOL!!

What, I wonder, did Russert pull on Arianna.

Patrick R. Sullivan

I just went to NBC's website thinking it would be fun to see who Russert had on MTP on July 20, 2003. Which is the first Sunday after he had his 'OMG That's what everyone was trying to find out! His wife is at the CIA and she sent him' revelation after reading Novak on July 14th.

The transcripts don't go back any further than August 2003.

From JOM archives back then it looks like the first appearance of Joe Wilson on NBC is on the Today Show of July 22, 2003. Which is the same day as the Phelps-Royce Newsday piece. Again, 8 days after Russert supposedly knew it was such a big deal.

Enlightened

Cyclops - I'm going to have to agree with you - you do not have any knowledge, and providing you with links does not seem to help - so I guess you'll have to go fact finding on your own.

hit and run

You know, Arianna has had it in for Russert for a long time. I admittedly only dip my toes in the headlines at Huffpo, but, I wonder if she has a case of RDS that outweighs any BDS?

Not that there's anything wrong with that (NTTAWWT)

Cycloptichorn

Enlightened - noone has provided me with a link to read, so I'm not sure why you say 'providing you with links doesn't seem to help.'

I'm not even challenging your assertion about Wilson - I'd just like to read more about it, is all.

JOMJunkie

Wonder if Russert has been visiting with his attorneys tonight. That last question by Wells might have left a mark! I hope NBC/MSNBC makes some on-air personnel changes after this fiasco. Read Matthews, Schuster, Olbermann, etc.

hit and run

Well, I had a choice.

Read through all of the last two threads since I left work for comprehension.

Or

Have a couple of drinks.

I chose wisely.

And

I love you man.

hit and run

Would be fun if Dan Abrams still had a show.

james


The truth is that it has not been determined whether or not there was a crime committed

If you mean with respect to the Libby perjust trial, true. If you mean with respect to outing a secret agent, not true.

Now, we have not only seen several people testify that Libby discussed the name with him before he said he 'learned it again,' Russert has testify that he didn't tell Libby in that conversation. This cuts to the heart of Libby's defense.

How does it do that? What do you think Libby's defence is? Why do you take for granted that if Russert says something different than Libby, that it means (a) that a lie is being told and that (b) Libby is the one telling it?

anonymous

I tuned into Hradball for an insufferable 15 minutes and was amazed at how Mathews, Shuster, Isikoff and what's his name are just a echo chamber of idiocy.

Even after the revelation that Plame suggested Wilson go BASED on the DIA report BEFORE Cheney even got the briefing BLEW A HUGE HOLE IN THEIR THEORY. They simply ignored it and continued to claim that Cheney kicked off the entire deal.

I guess they wouldn't be able to rant if they had to report a simple fact that destroys their theory.

The fact that Russert filed a utterly false affadavit with the court was also lost on them.

Now I also realize why the BDS crowd at FDL won't change. They simply kick out any poster that posts anything that doesn't follow the party line. Thus their isn't room for any intellectually honest debate.

clarice

h & r I blogged a summary for American Thinker.. we're trying to get it up as soon as possible. C

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

To answer Arianna Huffington's question as to "why" Russert became "cooperative," I'm reminded that Russert became Dan Rather! He was so sure he had the megaphone; that he could just do the "fake but accurate" routine, and get away with it.

While Arianna? None of these people are really "friends." Merely opportunists.

Want my fantasy? Libby is aquitted. And, the President, himself, asks him to return to the White House. And, then? Tony Snow "re-adjusts the chairs a bit, and David Gregory, among others, loses their White House passes. You bet, up ahead, I think the President can lay down new ground rules.

maryrose

If this is the best Fitz has got-no need for Libby to take the stand.

windansea

You don't think Wells will put Libby on the stand?

ya think?


Well, I had a choice.

what, you can't multitask?

Cycloptichorn

James,

You are incorrectly assuming that it has been proven that there was no crime in the outing of a secret agent in this case. You don't have any special information which confirms to you that this is the case; only the fact that no charges have yet been filed to that effect.

Remember that Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence; in this case, noone can say for sure whether a crime was committed or not. When it came to the time during testimony, it would be laughable to say that it had been proven by then that there was no crime committed, and that noone would be in trouble; there is absolutely no evidence that anyone believed that to be true at the time.

'Why do you take for granted that if Russert says something different than Libby, that it means (a) that a lie is being told and that (b) Libby is the one telling it?'

I don't take it for granted. But it is another piece of evidence for the jury to judge. All I said was that that was what Russert testified.

And, it doesn't even neccessarily have to be shown to be a lie in order to be trouble for Libby, because his defense that he didn't 'remember' Plame until having the conversation with Russert is challenged by Russert's testimony even if you believe that neither man is lying, and both men are merely mistaken about their memory.

Are you asserting that Russert is in fact lying?

MayBee

Alcibiades - I believe Russert's wife once wrote an unflattering piece about Arianna in Vanity Fair. Arianna has been gunning for Tim ever since.

hit and run

Clarice, you are the wind beneath my wings.

Pofarmer

Wow, go try to make a little money and get left in the dust. Whew, ain't no way I'm catchin up on all this.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Is Matthews show "live?" Or is it "tape delayed." It might explain a hell of a lot about the Shuster interview. It could have been "mapped out" thinking Russert would be a wonderful witness.

Don't forget, in the time-table, Russert was supposed to exit today. Yes, Wells is up, but he's doing CROSS. And, he gets more in on Russert t'marra.

Fitz wants the Defense to begin t'marra? Why not wait and see what Wells brings with him in turns of FILINGS for the judge, first?

I'll put my money on Jill Ambramson. On Monday. In the courtroom.

Fitz has a problem with over-promising stuff. How long will it take for the left's "combo actions" to get coordinated enough to "sink in?"

Sommers, in Buffalo, waited a long time for his shot at justice to be done, ya know? It shows ME, that some of the press has already slid off the DC bandwagon.

windansea

Remember that Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence

LOL I'm sorry I don't recall that

hit and run

windansea
what, you can't multitask?

I tried. I really tried. But after a couple drinks -- and laying in bed with my wife watching Boston Legal (hey Jane, which character is based on you?) I just couldn't keep focused. Oh, I "read" through all the comments, but if you quizzed me on them, I would produce bafflegab that would put the combined efforts of Cooper and Miller to shame.

cboldt

-- In Cbolt we trust --


LOL. I was just summarizing a few lines from a court filing.



In addition, as part of its Jencks Act disclosures, the government produced to the defendant (a) the report of the FBI interview of Mr. Russert, ^1 and (b) the transcript of Mr. Russert's August 7, 2004 deposition. ... [more production to defense snipped]

--

1 As indicated in the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Request for Disclosure of Information Related to Accommodations Provided to Media Witness Tim Russert, notes taken during this interview have not been located, despite a diligent search.

---

On a separate subject, I'm still waiting for the argument that recites or cites the SPECIFIC false statement (as contrasted with a moot argument) that Russert supposedly made. I see no false statement in the reading material I have here.

windansea

CycloTripteron is a troll

a very concerned one

cboldt
blockquote off
james

Cycloptichorn

What a twisted mind you have. "Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence".

There is no evidence that you masterminded the 911 attacks, but hey, absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence, right? Better take you into custody and see if you can prove your innocence.

After four years of this farce nobody has been charged with outing Plame, even though it is now public knowledge who was the first to give her name to a journalist - Armitage. Based on this, all we sane people can conclude that nobody is going to be charged with outing anyone. If you want to be around people who share your fantasy world you should go back to fdl.

Are you asserting that Russert is in fact lying?

Now you are being too stupid to respond to.

Dan S

cboldt,

I saw some potential conflicting statements there, but am uncertain to which combination Wells referred when he said that. It appears Walton decided to recess for the night on that note if we're not lead astray by the live blogs.

lurker

It's so easy to see that there is no crime committed. Libby did not leak. Exactly what did Libby perjure? Exactly what did Libby do to obstruct justice?

Fitz hasn't been able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt that it was intentional on Libby's part to perjure and obstruct justice. Especially when he told Bond that he's doing it on the best of his recollections and that he would need to refer to his notes.

Monica's dress proved beyond reasonable doubt that Clinton perjured himself.

Funny that Pete has trouble separating fact from fiction.

centralcal

More from Ariana (and I think it ties in nicely with my comments above):

"Russert prides himself on being the Everyman from Buffalo who cuts through the Washington double-speak and can explain it simply to his Dad, the legendary 'Big Russ.' So how would he explain this pompous double-speak to his Dad?"

Indeed! And, as I stated above, I think Little Russ is guilty of more than "pompous double-speak." I think he is lying by omission, by telling A truth, and only that truth.

hit and run

wax on

wax off

windansea

LOL. I was just summarizing a few lines from a court filing.

right..and you are usually very accurate

Dan S

Lurker,

Fiction is reality-based too, you know.

Cycloptichorn

'Based on this, all we sane people can conclude that nobody is going to be charged with outing anyone. '

We haven't caught OBL after 5 years; based on this, we all can conclude that we aren't going to catch him.

We haven't been to the moon in over 20 years, so based on this we all can conclude that we aren't going to go again.

---

What you call 'conclusions' aren't built up on anything but erroneous speculation that the past will mirror the future. I don't think that this is a logically valid conclusion to make.

'Now you are being too stupid to respond to.'

Apparently not.

clarice

cboldt of course that is a summary of the material turned over to the defense..if you mean the false statement in the filing..it is a filing in the case before J Hogan (to wit he should be protected from having to testify because of confidentiality) without revealing that he's already twice provided information to the FBI.
Interestingly, Russert's public statements always sais he told the prosecution in the deposition only what he'd told Libby (thereby keeping his public skirts spotless as a defender of the journo privilege) and we now that , too, was a scam--he told Eckenrode both sides of the story..in fact, as Wells noted--this was on a first phone call, and the person on the other end not being known to him, he could have been blabbing to absolutely anyone on the other end of the line.

hit and run

Sorry, this is from a way up on the thread, but I gotta clear the record:

comment at FDL

Clarice Feldman is lurking “live blogging live blogging” for JustOneMinute. I picture her laying in bed

I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING BUT THAT WAS NOT ME! I HAVE NEVER EVEN POSTED TO FDL!

Cycloptichorn

James, you said -

'What a twisted mind you have. "Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence".'

I was trying to remember where I heard this lately, and then it hit me:

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist." -Donald Rumsfeld, on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

Jane

(hey Jane, which character is based on you?)

The really smart, good looking one.

hit and run

That what I was thinking!

james

We haven't caught OBL after 5 years; based on this, we all can conclude that we aren't going to catch him.

We know that OBL exists. Or existed.

We do not know that any crime was committed relating to the outing of a CIA agent. In fact, everything we know indicates that no such crime was committed.

What, if anything, could prove to you that are are wrong about this? This current trial will not answer that question; Libby will be convicted or acquitted of perjury and that will be that.

Nobody has been or will be charged with outing Val. In your sopohomoric philosophy 101 way of thinking that does not "prove" that such a crime was not committed, but the problem there is with you.

hit and run

But you left off a couple of REALLY's

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN

Cbolt, isn't it possible the "conflict" arises in the way Russert had his lawyer send in his "quash" request? Imbedded in that is the lie that he didn't want to testify because he was "protecting" libby as a source. (Layman's terms.)

Enlightened

cboldt - IIRC, re the "false statement" you refer to, the judge would not let that line of questioning continue,or court adjourned, so that statement is a "hanging chad" so to speak.....

"Hmm, interesting that Walton broke off the testimony right there, after Wells thunders: so you lied in your affidavit, didn’t you?"

RichatUF

humm...went to the fdl site for this question...

W: Did you tell the FBI that you could not rule out absolutely that you talked about Wilson's wife?

T:

Tim Russert didn't answer...

RichatUF

james

Cycloptichorn

You are arguing that the evidence that Val was outed is analogous to the Iraqi WMD?

You are more stupid than I thought.

Publius

Re: Matthews-Shuckster

Although I do not speak or read German, I do not believe it is an exageration to say that Joseph Goebbels has produced propaganda anymore patently dishonest than what was on Hardball tonight.

Sara (Squiggler)

I cannot believe you guys watch Boston Legal. I tried to watch a couple of episodes and came away wanting a shower. It was like being stuck inside the mind of someone in the midst of a pornographic fantasy with the characters right out of an old time carnival freak show as the participants. That show is creepy.

windansea

Donald Rumsfeld, on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

you do understand we know you are a troll right?


JM Hanes

Clarice:

Technically speaking, Russert "claims" that he didn't tell Eckenrode both sides of the story, he just listened to the Libby side. LOL!

hit and run

Sara - NO!!!! I don't watch Boston Legal. My wife does. I just happened to be in the room at the time.

It is EVIL! Afterall, it tried to distract me from JOM.

RichatUF

and from main web report (as posted on other thread)...

You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?

I did not state her name, no

Did Russert really say this?

//catching up-interesting bit about the pleading: Libby call was "confidential" up until an FBI agent called him about, nice
RichatUF

Jane

I cannot believe you guys watch Boston Legal.

Not me. But I'm willing to be the smart good looking character just the same!

Publius

Re: Matthews-Shuckster

**exaggeration**

Sorry!

Cycloptichorn

James - thanks for the response.

Let me ask you: is the only 'underlying' crime possible charging someone with the IIPA?

I'm not alledging that I know where the case is going to go, or that I have special insight or knowledge; just asserting that noone else has the special insight or knowledge to say where the case is going to go either.

If Libby is acquitted, it will likely be the last we ever hear of it.

If he isn't, then either he'll do time, be pardoned, or flip. Fitzgerald may or may not charge others with crimes based upon any one of these outcomes; there's just no way for us to tell at this point what will happen.

That's why saying

'Based on this, all we sane people can conclude that nobody is going to be charged with outing anyone...'

is premature.


'You are arguing that the evidence that Val was outed is analogous to the Iraqi WMD?

You are more stupid than I thought.'

No, I was showing you that the statement I made - Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence - is a logically valid one. Rumsfeld explained clearly.

JOMJunkie

Can Eckenrode's call to Russert be construed as witness tampering?

topsecretk9

--W: Did you tell the FBI that you could not rule out absolutely that you talked about Wilson's wife?

T:

Tim Russert didn't answer...--

Rich...I didn't get that either. I think it might be editorial "control"

Cycloptichorn

windandsea -
'you do understand we know you are a troll right?'

No, I guess I don't understand that. I'm only here to talk about the Libby trial, not to get into personal arguments.

hit and run

Publius - apparently Schuster has trouble hearing and understanding English, so....

cboldt

-- if you mean the false statement in the filing..it is a filing in the case before J Hogan (to wit he should be protected from having to testify because of confidentiality) without revealing that he's already twice provided information to the FBI. --

I mean that I have yet to see the paper that contains this alleged "false statement." I understand he has made moot or bogus arguments about why he should not be compelled to testify under subpoena - but making a bogus argument is not the same thing as making a false statement. One can find moot (considered, then deemed "not useful") arguments in Libby's filings and hearing transcripts, that doesn't mean he is making a false statement.

Is Russert saying that "spilling the beans on my sources damages my credibility as a keeper of secrets" a false statement? No, it is not.

Or is your contention that a Motion to Quash cannot be made (i.e., arguments in a motion to quash amount to actionable false statements), if and after a person has given a statement to investigators?

windansea

Did Russert really say this?

he just walked right into it...that is such a non answer I am astounded Wells let him get away with it..

or wait..

Sara (Squiggler)

According to Fitz, no crime re: Plame/IIPA/Espinage Act was committed.

clarice

JOM Junkie--that depends on what was said and the only thing we have is a summary report. The actual notes have mysteriously disappeared and Russert seem to recall only one of the two calls from Eckenrode and that only vaguely.

clarice

cboldt, Sunny Day is trying to get the actual docs--I'm not ignoring your question, just trying to see if I can get the docs.

hit and run

windansea:
Did Russert really say this?

he just walked right into it...that is such a non answer I am astounded Wells let him get away with it..

or wait..


"Mr. Russert, I would like you grab onto the end of this rope. Wow, you're really good at this. Now, pull a little more toward yourself. Good. You really pick this up quickly. Can you make a loop with it? Great - I've never seen anyone with that level of dexterity. Now, this may sound strange, but would that loop fit around your neck?"

windansea

No, I guess I don't understand that. I'm only here to talk about the Libby trial, not to get into personal arguments

I'll explain...you smell bad

Rocco

Why wouldn't Russert answer with simple yes and no answers? Seems to me he volunteered information that Wells could have used against him.

Rick Ballard

windansea,

Not you too? What have those baby pixels done to you to deserve such a cruel fate? Smashed to bits on a ...

Oh, the horror.

windansea

Why wouldn't Russert answer with simple yes and no answers? Seems to me he volunteered information that Wells could have used against him.

the mark of most liars...TMI

cboldt

-- Russert seem to recall only one of the two calls from Eckenrode --

Where are you getting two calls from Eckenrode? Nov 14 2003 FBI interview, May 2004 was subpoenaed.

hit and run

I'll explain...you smell bad


OK, cut him some slack. Anosmia really stinks.

centralcal

Rocco: I had a theory, which I posted way above and I hope I don't get evicted for posting again:

For me, this is the most important exchange of the day:

"Wells: You recall in November 2003 that you did not recall saying anything to Libby about Wilson’s wife?

Russert: I did not state her name, no."

Russert demonstrated today that he could answer questions with a simple "No." But here, his "no" has to be qualified with (an artfully rehearsed?) specific lead in. The Maine blogger notes Russert's annoying habit of moralizing, but this qualification of a simple no answer is not moralizing.

Is Russert lying by telling A truth, rather than telling THE truth. Wells, may or may not move on and let this go. I hope the jury has noted it, and why wouldn't they? It sticks out like a sore thumb. It didn't fit the context of the question, which made it even more odd.

Why is Russert lying? What is his motivation?

windansea

Oh, the horror.

I admit it...I am bad :)

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

I read the live-blogging from the Maine Blogger Guy. And, he included Russert's answer: NO. Plus, you also have this question asked, where he qualified "if he told Libby about Wilson's wife ... ANSWER: "I did not tell him Plame's name.

It also seems Congress is getting upset that the CIA did not give "the committee" Plame's email to her boss, asking that her husband be sent to Niger. Was supposedly written either 2/2/02, or 2/12/02. My memory supports "not sure, exactly." But it's a DAY BEFORE Cheney asked for more details of Wilson's 1999 TRIP.

Congress critters have subpeona powers. Wilson's not totally "out" of trouble. Though the house in DC has been sold. I heard he, wife and kids, moved to New Mexico. Well? Maybe, just Mexico. Whatever.

He sure isn't getting the rounds of the talk (speak easy?) shows, like he did, though! I wonder? Did he lose his Rolodex Wheel?

Now, why would the shows no longer want to host such a handsome, smart, ambassador, who was their icon "truth teller" for so long?

"Omissions," when you see them, tell their stories, too.

One way to test who reads this blog? (Outside of what TM knows?) If you see the press still able to be in a "fog?" They're only focussed on their own sites. The information may never bleed through. But it detracts from "sweeps week" and viewer tallies, all the same.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame