Russert On Imus

On Don Imus this morning, Tim Russert was adamant that neither David Gregory nor Andrea Mitchell had received a leak about Valerie Plame Wilson.  However, he was not free to talk about much else - Imus asked him about his FBI interview, but Russert simply said that folks would have to look at the trial testimony, and that he could comment when this was over.

Whatever.  At a minimum, I would think that NBC would want Ms. Mitchell to take the stand so that we can see, by her confident, forceful, assured demeanor that she is telling the truth about not having a source.  The fact that she nearly swallowed her mike while stammering on Imus can't be held against her - she has had plenty of time to practice since then.

And if anyone is having trouble thinking of a reason for Russert or Mitchell to lie, please - at this point, both Russert and Mitchell can see the evidence supporting Libby's side of the story, and there does not seem to be any - Libby did not have the foresight to write an email or a memo commemorating this call, apparently, although he did testify that he mentioned it to Karl Rove just before Rove went on vacation (See Rove's possible testimony at MORE, below). 

So if Russert and Mitchell stick to their story, they can ride it out.  If they admit now that Russert has been misleading the Special Counsel and grand jury for over two years, with Mitchell's assistance, I bet Russert loses his job (unless NBC renames it "Meet The Weasel").

And since Andrea has been complicit in her public statements lately, she may take a huge hit to her credibility as well.  So she has plenty of reason to play along, and not much reason to change her tune.

I happen to have reasonable doubt as to whether she is truly source-free, but it does not appear that anyone will provide proof of anything (unless a source comes forward, thereby passing up a lovely blackmail opportunity.  But it wouldn't be cash blackmail - it would just be a promise of "fair" coverage from NBC's Washington Bureau.)

As to why they would have lied in the first place?  In Russert's case, it would have been to conceal the fact that he had a source, namely Andrea Mitchell.

And why didn't Andrea lie from the outset?  Maybe no one explained to her that by admitting she had a source she was inviting a subpoena. And let's note the "denial" from NBC issued on her behalf on Sept 29, 2003, with emphasis added:

TOM BROKAW: NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell has been identified by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent.  But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert Novak column was published. And that discussion, she said, was off the record.

Administration official?  Huh?  Not everyone in the world is an Administration official.  For that matter, not everyone in Washington who works for the government is an "Administration official".  My understanding is that an "Administration official" is a political appointee; a "government official" would be a careerist at, for example, State. 

So Mitchell did not have an "Administration" source (Novak claimed to have two Administration sources in his column).  In September 2003 NBC did not deny her having a government source, or a private citizen (Joe Wilson, for example) as a source.

I want to see her on the stand.  No Mitchell, no peace.

MORE:  What about Rove?  Here are two takes on his grand jury testimony, from the AP, Oct 2005 and Murray Waas, April 2006.  AP first:

Rove told grand jurors it was possible he first heard in the White House that Valerie Plame, wife of Bush administration Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA from Libby's recounting of a conversation with a journalist, according to people familiar with his testimony.

They said Rove testified that his discussions with Libby before Plame's CIA cover was blown were limited to information reporters had passed to them. Some evidence prosecutors have gathered conflicts with Libby's account.

...

Those familiar with the testimony and evidence said that:

During one of his grand jury appearances, Rove was shown testimony from Libby suggesting the two had discussed with each other information they had gotten about Wilson's wife from reporters in early July 2003.

Rove responded that Libby's testimony was consistent with his general recollection that he had first learned Wilson's wife worked for the CIA from reporters or government officials who had talked with reporters.

...

Rove testified he told Libby about his contact with Novak about two days after it happened.

In testimony shown to Rove, Libby stated that numerous journalists appeared to have learned about Plame's identity in the period before her name was published and that he and Rove talked to each other about their contacts with reporters.

Libby's testimony stated that Rove had told him about his contact with Novak and that Libby had told Rove about information he had gotten about Wilson's wife from NBC's Tim Russert, according to a person familiar with the information shown to Rove.

And Waas:

Rove also testified to the grand jury that he had heard from Libby that Plame worked for the CIA. But Rove testified that Libby told him that he only heard the information as rumors being passed on to him by journalists.

Hmm. If the investigators had to show Rove Libby's testimony, that suggests that Rove had not volunteered the news that Libby had mentioned Russert to him.  And this phrasing - "Rove responded that Libby's testimony was consistent with his general recollection" hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of Libby's version.

But it's not a contradiction!  Still, if the defesne calls Rove and the prosecution starts reading back his grand jury testimony to the effect of "Libby may have mentioned that he had heard something from reporters, too, I just don't recall", well, that won't be too helpful.

Comments

[Martin]

"although he did testify that he mentioned it to Karl Rove just before Rove went on vacation..."

And I'm sure Rove is going to back up Libby on this right?

Now you call Russert and Mitchell liars based on nothing but your own fantasies. Wow. What a tool you are. Just assume Libby was the one lying: it makes the story fit better, and, as an added bonus, comports with reality.

[Good Lt]

Merry Fitzmas!

I wonder how that lump of coal is burning...

[ordi]

Just like his comrades on the left Martin accuses TM of the very thing he and his comrades do. I'd say Martin is a tool of the left, he is a Flathead Screwy Driver! LOL

[clarice]

I am not sure how the defense will deal with her. They will have her notes and her emails etc and her news articles from that period--including surely lots of stuff between her and Armitage..and stories clearly sourced to DoS.

Perhaps they also know if she and or Gregory did call Harlow to seek confirmation.

[Appalled Moderate]

I'd rather have David Gregory, myself. He either impeaches Russert or Ari. (Or shows himself to be a total idiot...a possibility, I suppose. Given that he has not been deposed, I'm not sure Wells knows what his testimony would be -- which is kind of dangerous.)

I'm not sure Andrea does anything but repeat her denials. So what? And from a trial standpoint, what does her testimony do except (as Fitz pointed out -- reasonably, I think in this case) give the defense to drag in her "everybody knows it" testimony that is otherwise inadmissable. And, I guess, by insinuating Armitage into the mix, it gets her to look like yet another liar...Again, not sure why that helps Libby.

By the way, I remain skeptical Russert has sunk into reasonable doubt, just yet. The jury may see it differently, and the atmosphere created by Wells (which the liveblogs cannot entirely recreate by their very nature) may have been so striking that reasonable doubt was created. Wells has introduced: (i) Russert might forget stuff and (ii) Russert speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Useful. But it does not offer any reasonable indication that Russert knew about the information to lie about it. And I don't think you get to reasonable doubt until you get that.

And before you lawyers with cases to cite and Fitz's to grind go after me on this, think of this in terms of a jury, which does not have your sense that this whole thing is a crock.

[james]

AM

"I'm not sure Andrea does anything but repeat her denials."

Perhaps. And will you believe her?

[Cecil Turner]

Now you call Russert and Mitchell liars based on nothing but your own fantasies.

Well, that and the teensy little inconsistencies with their own public statements. But maybe they were just drunk.

By the way, I remain skeptical Russert has sunk into reasonable doubt, just yet.

As a factual matter, I agree. But this really isn't about facts (if it were, it'd never have been brought). And I'm thinkin' that and the rest of the holes in the case probably pushed at least one juror into the "no way" category. If so, cosmic justice will be served on a plate of irony.

[maryrose]

If Andrea has nothing to hide then stop fighting the subpoena and go under oath. If she had a source she needs to admit it now. Russert and Mitchell can't cover for each other forever. Someone must know he truth here and I think his name is Gregory. We need a private investigator to get to the bottom of this web of lies.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

It seems to me that the significance of the Capitol Report admission is that it came BEFORE Russert was told by the FBI guy what Libby had said. That is, before there was any need for Andrea to back up Tim's story.

It was then forgotten for two years until Taranto dug up the transcript in November 2005. After Russert testified to his story under oath.

There are some other indications in that Capitol Report interview that indicate Andrea was admitting she knew that Valerie worked at the CIA. She had Wilson's phone number and called him Saturday night to invite him on MTP. She probably had talked with him before that, and may have learned (as General Vallely did) through the usual social badinage that Mrs. Wilson was at 'the Agency'. But, it didn't register with her that she had had anything to do with Joe's Niger trip.

Here's what I had to say about it in November 2005:

-----------quote-----------
BORGER: Did Wilson's wife come, by the way, to the studio or not?

MITCHELL: Not at all.

BORGER: OK. All right. Just thought I'd ask.

MITCHELL: Separate lives. So that week, on the 8th of July, I did a story on "Nightly News" about Wilson's allegations focusing on Niger, the uranium, not focusing on any issue involving his spouse.

[I interrupt to note she just told Imus she didn't even know about his spouse at this point]

Then on the 14th, the bombshell from Novak, ...that she was a covert--rather an operative, as he put it, at the CIA. The clear implication that she had somehow been involved in getting him to take this assignment....

[I interrupt again to point out that this is consistent with; I knew she was CIA, but I didn't know just what she did.]

....

We should point out that I did do a story after that, on July 21st. I interviewed Wilson, did a story on the fact that he was now alleging that there was an attempt to bring his wife into it, that this was an administration attempt to intimidate him.
---------endquote---------

[clarice]

AM ..... on closing the defense will hit on (a) the FBI summary (taken closer in time to the event) which shows he said it is possible that he said what Libby said he did, and (b) his memory--certainly shown to be imperfect--is less, rather than more, likely to have improved with time.Certainly it will also argue that since neither man had notes of the conversation and Russert in the Buffalo News incident (so close in time to this one) forgot entirely 2 telephone conversations he had about a subject near and dear to himself--i.e., himself--the jury cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that his later recollection of this conversation must be true and Libby's must be false.

[Martin]

If one doesn't believe Libby lied beyond a reasonable doubt-that's fine. I could actually accept that.

But, at this point, if you don't believe it's more likely than not that Libby lied (which would still mean a vote to acquit), i.e. you believe that Libby is a little misremembering angel, you're either extremely gullible, incredibly stupid, or a paid agent of the Libby Defense Fund.

[VA Voter]

The Libby defense team should recall Tim Russert to impeach his integrity and bias against the Bush administration as follows:

Q. Define your position as bureau chief of the NBC Washington bureau?

Q. Does that include: meeting with other more senior executives in making decisions regarding NBC policies and procedures? What and how stories are investigated and reported? Meeting with lawyers, fact checkers, producers, investigators, reporters and others like managers and executives in developing stories?

Q. How important is fact checking?

Q. Is it the responsibility of an on air personality like you to be more thoroughly informed than the average member of the public?

Q. As host and an NBC executive don’t you have wide latitude and discretion on what makes it on the air?

Q. Please define journalistic integrity? Does that include avoiding deliberate misrepresentation? Would you say you have the highest standards of journalistic integrity?

Q. When did you first learn that V. Plame was not a covert CIA operative?

Fitzgerald: Objection. The Q is outside the scope of your Honor’s limitations as to what can be admissible in this proceeding.

Wells: Your honor, the witness opened the door to this line of questioning and I intend to impeach his sworn testimony.

Judge: Objection overruled.

Q. You previously testified that you appear on air nearly every Sunday, 2-3 times a week on the Today show, periodically on Imus and on various other venues, correct?

Q. Between the dates of xx/xx/xxxx and yy/yy/yyyy, how many times did you refer to V. Plame as a covert employee or CIA operative?

Q. Did you ever submit that observation to fact checking?

Q. When did you become aware of a friend of the court brief submitted by numerous news organizations (including NBC?) stating that the NYT reporter should be released because there was no crime as Plame was not an operative nor covert?

Q. Were you present when the decision to file this brief was discussed? Did you participate? Were you consulted? Did any reporter or fact checker point this out to you ever? Are you aware that NBC lawyer Xxxxxxxxxxx says you were present?

Q. How is it credible that you were not aware of this brief?

Q. Let me take you back to your previous testimony that you were not biased against the administration. How could you make XX references to something you knew to be factually incorrect unless you were biased?

Q. How many times did you challenge others who referred to Plame as covert or an operative?

Q. How could you claim to have an ounce of journalistic integrity to make XX references to something you knew to be factually incorrect?

Q. Are you selectively remembering what you want to remember but not recall what you don’t want to recall?

Q. Why should anything you have testified to be believed?

[blue]

"Andrea Mitchell had received a leak about Valerie Plame Wilson"

Perhaps a leak about Valerie Plame?

Maybe a leak about Wilson's wife?

[boris]

reasonable doubt that his later recollection of this conversation must be true and Libby's must be false

There is a symmetry between this and the Libby charge. Russerts claim is not based on what he recalls that he didn't say, it's based on being surprised as if for the first time when discovering the wife in Novak's column some days later. Since that was a surprise he couldn't possibly have told Libby because he didn't know. The defense seeks to establish exposure to that info from Mitchell and Gregory, not to prove Russert did know but to suggest that he could have known and his "surprise" at learning later is an unexplained subjective phenomenon not reliable enough to use as evidence against Libby.

IOW logically speaking Russert has not testified about what he said to Libby, he doesn't remember that. Russert has testified he was surprised when he read it in Novak's column.

For Libby the June exposures to info about the wife from Cheney, Martin (Harlow), Grossman, Grenier and Schmall do not prove Libby knew, only that he could have found out from them what he later told to Ari. It's Ari's testimony that "proves" he knew and the previous incidents are just possible plausible sources.

Libby claims he couldn't possibly have told Ari or Miller because he was surprised to find out later from Russert. In essence his testimony is based on that surprise, not memory of the Ari & Miller conversations.

A lot is riding on Russert's surprise contradicting Libby's surprise. If the defense is heading in a particuar path, it could be to discredit the use of "surprise" as a reliable method for reconstructing recall testimony.

[Anarchus]

Wondering if I'm the only person here who thinks that almost every witness has exhibited an inconsistent and selective memory that's highly biased in favor of results helpful to their careers?

To wit, the ugly culture of "spinning" (1) in D.C. seems to have led most "important" political/media figures into the gross self-delusion that if you stridently repeat your plausible story 10,000 times, then it MUST be true . . . . .

Oy. I think that almost every witness AND Libby tried to mislead the FBI from the start in this case, but the only thing I would vote to convict anyone of in such cases is stupidity. I have a number of small children, and I'm teaching them all: "do not, under any circumstances, ever say anything to the FBI other than, I WANT MY LAWYER NOW". And that's sad, actually.

Anarchus

(1) If a "gaffe" in D.C. occurs when someone accidentally blurts out the truth, then "spinning" covers the other 99.9% of utterances which may or may not be plausible but are almost entirely false.

[hit and run]

or a paid agent of the Libby Defense Fund.

If there's a way I can get paid for my obsession with this case, I would like to hear more.

I am willing to check just about any belief at the door to be compensated for this addiction.

[boris]

you don't believe it's more likely than not that Libby lied

Cue replay:

The quality of the evidence so far falls short of compelling. In fact the Libby testimony, while clearly self serving, is less likely to be a lie because it served no useful purpose for either legal jeapordy or political cover. If Libby has to forget a whole bunch of stuff to concoct such a useless lie, then the simpler explanation is that he just forgot a whole bunch of stuff.

Not **** PROOF THAT HE DIDN'T LIE **** !!!

It just drops the likelyhood a little below 50%. LIE should NOT be the default assumption in absence of proof to the contrary. Rational evaluation of the facts places the relliability of either assumption in the neighborhood of coin toss.

[Dan S]

Martin,

I'll bite. I'll accept your posit: "It's more likely that Libby lied than that he's remembering wrong" (my words) if you will also agree that based on Russert's on-the-record evidence of real and severe memory lapsing, it's more likely than not that Russert has no clue what he said to Libby. He's reconstructing what he believes must have been the case rather than recollecting what actually happened. His statement to FBI supports this.

Of course, running the math on that would show Libby is more likely than not telling the truth about this one.

Which is the point.

If this one goes down the drain, the Cooper one is apt to follow shortly. Not having the Russert claim as foundation hits hard(er) at presumptions of motive.

[Cecil Turner]

Perhaps a leak about Valerie Plame?

I prefer: It's not a "leak" if she got it directly from Plame (or Wilson). But yes, lots of precision from a news source that's been notably imprecise covering the rest of this story.

Cue replay:

Nice. And I'd note we STILL can't come up with a reasonable motive for telling the "lies" Libby is claimed to've he told.

[Dan S]

I meant the Miller one. The Cooper one already did, apparently. :)

[JohnH]

Wells has shown that the defense has done a lot of research. If Andrea gets on the stand, we may hear some interesting tidbits from what she said to various people.

[Other Tom]

Martin, you're completely overlooking the Rule in Dumpor's Case. Look it up; it proves Libby is innocent.

[Jane]

Mitchell must honestly believe that she has a way out of this mess - perhaps just by denying she spoke to her boss, for Russert to have testified the way he did. There certainly had to be advanced coordination. It's not like they didn't see this coming.

What NBC news wants us to believe is that no one reporting at state (Mitchell) had a clue what was going on at state, and no one had the curiousity to ask - all while being top notch reporters who don't traffic in rumor, and didn't celebrate the indictments, and had no discussions about it among themselves. I guess it will boil down to whether Tim Russert is now the most trusted man in America.

Tim was gloating a bit too much for my taste on Imus. I think I've lost what little respect I had left for him.

[clarice]

Martin:"you're either extremely gullible, incredibly stupid, or a paid agent of the Libby Defense Fund."

Those are my only choices?

[Cecil Turner]

I'm with H&R. If those are the choices, I wanna get paid!

[clarice]

At least reimbursement for cab rides to and from the courthouse..

[jwest]

Mitchell’s lawyers have stated that she will testify she didn’t know of Plame prior to Novak’s article.

Having seen both her “everyone knows” moment and her subsequent explanation to the contrary and assuming she hasn’t suddenly attained miraculous acting skills, the jury may have doubts as to the accuracy of her denial.

Also, with the number of long-term memory restorations we’ve seen in this trial, perhaps she will remember something that slipped her mind in previous statements.

[hit and run]

Jane:
I guess it will boil down to whether Tim Russert is now the most trusted man in America.

Oh I trust Russert. I trust him alright. I trust him to wiggle, weasel, deflect, and preen.

He has not broken my trust.

[Barney Frank]

Cecil or boris help me out here,

--In fact the Libby testimony, while clearly self serving, is less likely to be a lie because it served no useful purpose for either legal jeapordy or political cover.--

How is his testimony "clearly self serving"?
I'm one who started out assuming he lied but never saw motive or even a reasonable explanation for it. Even if he was believed his testimony made him look like a bit of an imbecile. Hard for me to see what's self serving.
I don't know if Fitz's case has had the same efect on the jurors, but I'm rather less certain he lied after the parade of ninnies we've seen.

[Dan S]

Me too!

[Jane]

I'm rather less certain he lied after the parade of ninnies we've seen.

That is very good news!

[dorf]

Paid Agent: How do I get the gig?

[jwest]

Question to all the lawyers present……

Could Wells call Fitz as a witness for the defense? Can a Special Prosecutor be questioned under oath as to motive, practices, etc.?

[Dan S]

I assumed he'd lied too. Why? He's involved directly in politics and politico types lie a lot. And based on what we were getting from the news media (in the early wading) it seemed there might be cause for cover-ups.

And I'm sure he has lied about some things relating to his position at one point or another. Unless we make effort not to lie, most of us do it when it's easier than telling the truth.

But I'm not at all sure he lied about THIS set of events. I just don't see how lying was easier here. Seems rather complicated, and the specific lies he's accused of don't make sense in the context.

As this came out, I shifted.

But you don't see many on the BDS side shifting, and the testimony to date SHOULD be taking great bites out of the underpinnings of their certainly. But it isn't.

[hit and run]

Back off everyone. I called it first. If anyone is going to be a paid agent, it's me. There's only so much money to go around and I want it all.

Step away from the keyboard and nobody gets hurt.

[Jane]

Could Wells call Fitz as a witness for the defense? Can a Special Prosecutor be questioned under oath as to motive, practices, etc.?

No. WEll that's not a "legal" answer, but it is not realistic in the least.

[boris]

Hard for me to see what's self serving.

Ok, "clearly" was subjective eval. It seemed to me Libby overplayed only telling what all the reporters were saying and didn't even know if it were true. The Cooper note that indicates "doesn't eve[n] ..." makes that not sound so far fetched.

[clarice]

jwest--the judge would never permit it as there has to be a very very compelling reason to call a trial lawyer in a case to be a witness. Fitz was going to call one of his assistants, Fleissner in presumably to put in some evidence of the constraints they operated under in subpoenaing journos--perhaps because the gaps between who was subpoenaed and who wasn't make such obvious hash of the investigation and make the obstruction count so goofy.
But he changed his mind.
And it is obvious why to me.

[Appalled Moderate]

Guys:

Why bring someone to the stand simply to have her deny she knew anything or told Russert anything?

At least Gregory is in a "should have known" position, if we accept Ari's testimony as true. To get Andrea to a "should have known" position, Armitage has to get on the stand first and say something much like Ari said (or he has to take the 5th amendment -- which may not be available to him, based on his immunity). And if that were in the wings, I would think there would be something in the filings hinting at it. (Also, that is just too Perry Mason for reality.)

[hit and run]

I assumed he'd lied too. Why? He's involved directly in politics and politico types lie a lot.

Well, I always assumed that everyone was lying at least while in front of microphones, on the phones, on background, whatever.

I have a harder time starting with that assumption once under oath.

[hit and run]

New Thr.....

Oh wait. Sorry.

[Dan S]

Clarice,

Can. Worms. Open?

[Martin]

Dan S - the exact point is that Russert is a scumbag. He's no "biased liberal media" anti-Bush crusader journalist-he's a government mouthpiece.

Cathie Martin called him their go to guy to get their message out. Mary Matalin-Cheney's press guru- SENT Libby to Russert*

I fail to grasp how obtuse one must be to ascribe motive after motive for Russert to have come in and committed a felony in front of the whole world while failing to seeing no motive for Libby in the grand jury stage.

*Where does this fit in to TM's fantasy? Think Libby is still getting press advice from Matalin?

[Dan S]

Did defense protest that witness? Seems they should have, with marginal cites and less than perfect arguments.

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

If Fitz's theory of motive is indiscernible today, after the prosecution case has rested, do you think he can wrestle it into existance on closing?

This isn't a bank robbery and if I were a juror I think I would be wondering quite a bit as to the "why" issue. Right now, with the defense case yet to be presented, Fitz hasn't cleared the summit of the "reasonable doubt" hill. He might be within sight but he sure isn't over the top.

Could he get there with his closing without trying to introduce something "new"?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

You know, if a lawyer was "prepping" me to face a cross examination by WELLS? And, that advice was "TO BE CONFIDENT?"

Folks, I AM CONFIDENT! And, I'd pick my wallet off the table and run out the door, SCREAMING FIRE!

Wells will eat Andrea Mitchell, by countering her "posture" with FACTS. He will have (probably admitted into evidence) all sorts of stuff.

Last night, HERE, I read that Clarice was asking for information about ONE 1999 (Clinton) STATE dinner. She wanted to know the guest list. (You don't think Wells has this, arleady?)

In a tight circle, where men like Russert, eat the "little people" like Sommers, and then furgehtabout-it. You think there's real bowing and scraping working the other way?

You don't think people have resentments? Oh, and some just don't come here to follow this case, either. Wells gets calls, galore.

Andrea Mitchell, when Wells is through with her? Will get sympathy because she'll look as dumb as Anna Nicole Smith. (Greenspan will look like the PUTZ that married her.)

Yeah, I can rant, too.

[Dan S]

Martin,

You don't read. I'm not accusing Russert of perjury. I'm simply recognising what is already on the record: he has documents memory laspses about exactly this sort of thing.

[clarice]

DanS:"Clarice,

Can. Worms. Open?"

I should say. I don't recall any mention of a defense protest. I suspect it would have been an unexpected boon had Fleissner taken the stand and the jury heard "good leake" "bad leaks" and"first to leak"

[Martin]

Martin:"you're either extremely gullible, incredibly stupid, or a paid agent of the Libby Defense Fund."

Those are my only choices?

My bad Clarice. I forgot about Boris. One can of course be BOTH extremely gullible AND incredibly stupid.

[jwest]

“Why bring someone to the stand simply to have her deny she knew anything or told Russert anything?”

Because Fitz chose to use media reports as evidence in this trial. Mitchell was asked a simple question and provided a lucid answer that “everyone knew” in the media. Of course, she later made a nonsensical, stumbling retraction, but since the original credible admission was out there and she works directly under Russert, it’s fair game.

If Wells plays the tape of her admission and she testifies that it was wrong, the jury will decide which presentation is credible.

[Sue]

Cathie Martin called him their go to guy to get their message out. Mary Matalin-Cheney's press guru- SENT Libby to Russert*

You are basing your assumption on Russert never being the go-to guy for prior administrations. MTP was the show to go on if you wanted a large audience. It is that simple.

[Ranger]

I'd like to point out that Andrea's comment about everybody knew was refering to the time before Wilson even outed himself. She was saying that people learned about Wilson's wife in the process of trying to figure out who the "envoy" was. That would seem to lead to three possible sources.

1) Wilson himself, who was pitching his story as a "former ambasador with close ties to the CIA." You would think some crack reporters would have asked what those "close ties" were.

2) The EPIC event where Wilson outed himself for the first time. If people were really trying to figure out who the envoy was, then word of the "former ambasador's" talk would have gotten around. Especially if a guy like Kristof bragged about his journalistic coup of having breakfast with Wilson and his wife. Kristof as only ever denied that he knew Plame was a former covert agent. He in fact implied that he had known she worked for the CIA for a while. He also only denied that she provided information for the Niger story, not that she had ever been a source of his for reporting on intel issues.

3) If reporters were trying to figure out who the envoy was, they would have contacted any sources they had in CPD, since that is where any intel report for any source on proliferation would have ended up. We know a couple of the reporters here have connections inside the CIA, and probably CPD.

4) Andrea's description of finding out about the wife by looking for the envoy sounds a lot like why Grossman asked for the INR memo.

So, there were lots of ways for Andrea to have learned, and I have a pretty strong feeling that she was absolutely right. It was widely known.

[Martin]

Dan S-I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about Maguire who accuses Russert of exactly that.

[Martin]

Sue-I called Russert a "government mouthpiece" not a Bush mouthpiece-so I'm not sure what your point is. As usual. Grin ::))

[David Walser]

But, at this point, if you don't believe it's more likely than not that Libby lied ... you're either extremely gullible, incredibly stupid, or a paid agent of the Libby Defense Fund.

Martin, in all seriousness, why is it not possible to have the good faith belief that Libby's testimony was inaccurate but not a lie? To me, the prosecution's case has proven that Libby's testimony was more likely than not consistent with Libby's memory. If his testimony was consistent with is memory, it was not a lie despite any inaccuracies.

There, I've stated my reason for believing Libby did not lie. That must mean I'm extremely gullible (Not true, or I'd have bought your crap by now.), incredibly stupid (Also not true. I've the IQ test results to prove it.), or a paid agent of the Libby defense fund (Also not true. Hit & Run has that gig. He won't admit it because he's trying to hide the income from his wife.)

[Barney Frank]

DanS,

--I assumed he'd lied too.....But I'm not at all sure he lied about THIS set of events.--

"Assume" was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said after seeing what he said, I believed he was lying but that a sensible prosecuter would not charge him, as it was certainly plausible he was just a goof. Unless the sense of what has gone on, from both FDL and the Maine man, is way off it's hard to see a jury convicting unless axes are being ground. I still think he may have been lying up a storm, but if this is the standard of proof nowadays its not much different than Judge Bean's.

[Sue]

His show is the #1 Sunday morning show. It is pretty simple, even for you, to understand why he was the go-to guy when you wanted a message out.

I never know what your point is. I continue to try and figure it out, for some reason. ::grin::

[Martin]

Sue-Libby was calling Russert to complain about unfavorable coverage-not to get booked on MTP.

If they really thought Russert was a press enemy-what relief was Libby hoping for?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Maybe, it's just me? But I see Andrea's HONEST STATEMENT as something WELLS can work with. And, I think she is IN.

TIP? Clarice gave it. She asked if "anyone had the guest list" to the Clinton's 1999 State Dinner. Because? It might show that the Wilson's were there. AND, the Greenspan's. And, about the 500 or so who got invitations PROVING they were the INNER CIRCLE.

How do I know this as a characteristic about DC? Mary Todd Lincoln. She used to give big dinner parties. It started (at the same time the Lincoln's favorite son, Willy, took sick.) TO CANCEL OR NOT TO CANCEL THE BIG DINNER PARTY?

This was the FIRST ONE IN DC, done by a president, to increase his influence with the "in crowd." A doctor came and said Willy wasn't sick enough to cancel. (Willy died. Mary Todd Lincoln never recovered from her depression.)

BUT THE PARTY! It was a success! Because Mary Todd Lincoln found a way for her husband to move in the "finer circle."

It's not going to take much to see Andrea Mitchell fold up like a cardboard suitcase. (Don't forget. To have her ticket INTO the "inner circle" she spread her legs for Greenspan. He then proposed. Yes. Very bright men pick ditzy blondes. It's an old story.)

[hit and run]

David Walser:
Hit & Run has that gig. He won't admit it because he's trying to hide the income from his wife.

Yes, and the IRS.

They pay me by funneling money that comes from selling arms to Fatah.

Don't. Tell. Anyone.

[clarice]

Sorry Carol, the guest list was found and the Greenspans and Russerts weren't on it.

Martin I take it he called for the reason he said he did, Matthews were megaphoning Wilson's lies without even once giving the Administration's response. Something Matthews and Shuster continue to do without MSNBC calling for strait jackets and selling his gig to Comedy Central.

[Sue]

Sue-Libby was calling Russert to complain about unfavorable coverage-not to get booked on MTP.

If they really thought Russert was a press enemy-what relief was Libby hoping for?

You are confusing yourself. Cathie Martin discussed Russert and MTP in connection with the VP going on there to refute the allegations Wilson was throwing around. Matalin told Libby to call Russert because of his position at NBC. Two. Separate. Issues.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Martha Stewart found herself in a pickle. She oopted to PICK UP HER WALLET FROM THE TABLE, rather than go through the millions it would take "to clear her name." Where she could have started off SUING her "friend," da' lawyer. ANd, the BROKERAGE HOUSE, for not cancelling that ILLEGAL TRADE, they made by putting a non-credentialed kid on the job to call her.

Andrea Mitchell? Not as smart a blonde.

Her husband, Alan Greenspan, though, is no dummy. SO, separate from all the "legal, schmeagle, NBC, Shapiro and "boss" advice,) what DO YOU THINK Alan is telling his wife?

Remember this. When Alan moved a percentage point at the Feds, the market either rattled. Or recovered. You don't think he sees in the corner with tape on his mouth, do you?

[Florence Schmieg]

I am getting really tired of Martin, Pete, and some of the other lefties (not all) making personal attacks and cheap shots at those they disagree with. This seems to be a hallmark of the left. I see it on other blogs as well.

[Martin]

Ok Walser:

Stipulated: Cheney told Libby. AND Libby forgot about it.
Grenier lied under oath-OR Libby just forgot about it.
Schmall lied under oath-OR Libby just forgot about it.
C. Martin lied under oath-OR Libby just forgot about it.
Addington lied under oath-OR Libby just forgot about it.
Miller lied under oath-OR Libby just forgot about it.
Cooper lied under oath-OR Libby just forgot about it.
Russert lied under oath-or Libby just "misremembered" it.

You picked column B every time. And you think you're not gullible. Whatever.

[Barney Frank]

AM,

--Why bring someone to the stand simply to have her deny she knew anything or told Russert anything?--

I tend to agree and I doubt Well's has some Perry Mason moment in store for her.
I suspect he believes he will mke such a monkey of her on the stand that the jury will apply some of her idiocy and back pedalling to Russert.
It would be interesting to hear her but I'm not sure it serves Libby well.
Close call I'd say. He's already established nobody has a very good memory of events; but I suspect he believes she will do very poorly. If she and Alan have a combined IQ of say 195, I think we can guess who's in double digits.

[Sue]

Florence,

It is their modus operandi. Without it, they are left with making reasoned arguments. And that is impossible, considering their argument is based on a belief rather than facts. They see conspiracies everywhere and if there is one iota of evidence to support it, they are convinced.

[Rick Ballard]

H & R,

Since Tom is spreading possibly untrue rumors concerning the Threadherder and sheep it behooves you to take on another persona in order to keep up the good work.

Let's see if anyone dares mock Atropos.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'...the jury may have doubts as to the accuracy of her denial.'

Especially since she has every reason to support her boss's story.

[Sue]

Grenier lied under oath-OR Libby just forgot about it.

Isn't Grenier the one who 'recovered' his memory? Or felt his memory?

You left out Grossman. Intentional or overlooked?

[Martin]

I left out Fleischer too. Overlooked. But Sue-let's cut to the chase-

Do you believe Russert just lied under oath in open court?

[David Walser]

Libby was calling Russert to complain about unfavorable coverage-not to get booked on MTP.

If they really thought Russert was a press enemy-what relief was Libby hoping for?

From Matilin's comments on Imus, I believe she thought Russert would care that Hardball was being inaccurate. [(It's hard to tell what ANY guest on Imus means. His interview style is not designed to produce information or insight, but to entertain.) Either Libby misunderstood what she said when he wrote in his notes "Tim hates Chris", she misspoke, or the full comment was condensed from "Tim hates it when Chris does stuff like this." to the shorter, inaccurate version.] You don't have to be a shill to care that one of your shows is grossly distorting the truth.

[boris]

Grenier lied under oath

Who says?

Grenier: "I must have mentioned it because I felt guilty after ..."

So not compelling. But that's not calling him a liar either.

[jwest]

Barney,

Mitchell’s testimony is worthless without the videotape of her “everyone knows” statement. That’s why Fitz is stomping his feet about it being played.

It was clear in that impromptu moment she was telling the truth, just as it was clear later that she was hopelessly lost trying to backpedal.

Jurors will see the difference.

[kate]

What I'm not seeing from the Prosecutor's case to date is an overarching theme. It seems to me to be alot of bad memories on a trivial detail.

At first, I thought Libby may have lied to protect the fact that Cheney told him...not so, he told the Grand Jury that after he remembered it more cleary that Cheney gave the evidence to the SP first.

Maybe he did not want to admit passing the info to reporters because that could be a violation of the secrets act, but Libby apparently overconfessed to discussing this with reporters.

I'm just not seeing a theme, a reason that makes sense for Libby to have lied. He just seems confused to me.

[Jane]

If Fitz's theory of motive is indiscernible today, after the prosecution case has rested, do you think he can wrestle it into existance on closing?

Oh I think he can and will. And I've often heard that theory (he lied to protect Cheney from culpability) articulated by the media since the trial started.

Could he get there with his closing without trying to introduce something "new"?

I think he can talk about (motive) how the administration used Libby to get information out, and he lied about it to protect his bosses, without having provided any evidence of same. I think. It's been 25 years since I tried a criminal case. So maybe otherTom can chime in. Or Clarice, as to if he can do it as a matter of law.

On motive I think he can argue whatever he wants. Argument is not evidence. If he goes to far afield Wells can object, altho that is rarely done in closing.

[Martin]

Nope Kate-Libby's story is specifically that he did not discuss it with reporters except to learn it from them. He has a "specific" recollection of Russert telling him about Plame, and he was careful not to confirm it.

[Sue]

Do you believe Russert just lied under oath in open court?

I've posted my views on almost every thread concerning Libby. If you haven't noticed them before, I don't feel like restating them for someone who can't figure out what I'm saying to begin with. If you truly are interested, go look for them.

[Dan S]

Martin,

That was certainly a fair dichotomy, wasn't it? Aren't there at least four possible combinations of each statement?

A lied: B lied
A lied: B forgot
A forgot: B lied
A forgot: B forgot

Based on what we've heard from testimony so far I rate four as the highest probablility, in fact, I rate it greater than all other three combined.

I suspect no one involved on the stand has anthing resembling a perfect memory. To believe that is to not believe the witnesses who continually say "I don't recall," or "I think so, but I can't say I'm sure."

They pose us a seeming paradox. They themselves express uncertainly in their memories, but we are to trust their memories in judging those same memories? It makes heads hurt in the jury, I suspect. And that's just with regards to evaluating their own testimony.

The complexity increases geometrically (or is it exponentially?) as additional witnesses are added into the mix.

You want us to believe this is a simple dichonomy, either or? It's no where near that.

And that's why the standard is reasonable doubt.

Mostly what I see on the left is unreasonable certainty. That is nothing but faith. In fact, that's the definition of faith.

[theo]

Again, I doubt that Walton will let them call Andrea just to have her denial questioned. But perhaps he has already ruled on that and I missed it. It really does get far afield. Russert has said that he did not know. If Mitchell said she did not know but has given contrary indications in the past, just how far does that get us. As with Gregory it remains possible -- despite what Russert told Imus -- that they knew but did not tell Russert.

I think the record as is is pretty good for the defense. In closing, Wells can connect the dots. IF Ari is right, then Gregory knew. If Gregory knew, then Tim knew. So either Fleischer or Russert is wrong.

Mitchell does not really help that narrative. She does sort of help with one other defense argument however. She can be a poster child for the argument that when looking back on that week, a lot of people got jumbled about what they knew and when they knew it. Libby is just one more.

[Martin]

But you can't answer a simple yes or no, here?

Too scared to contradict Maguire?

[capitano]

Could Wells call Fitz as a witness for the defense? Can a Special Prosecutor be questioned under oath as to motive, practices, etc.?

Posted by: jwest | February 09, 2007 at 08:43 AM

I just had this image of Fitzgerald playing the Woody Allen character -- Fielding Mellish -- on trial for treason in the movie, Bananas. He jumps in and out of the witness chair as he cross examines himself and finally says:

Fielding Mellish: I object, your honor! This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

[theo]

Dan S makes a good point. Perjury cases are very hard to prove because we all get tangled up in memory and perjury requires knowingly telling a lie. Remember how the liberals defended Clinton? Maybe he "forgot" that he was ever alone with Monica.

[hit and run]

Rick:
Let's see if anyone dares mock Atropos

Atropos. Holy Cow. That's awesome. (And it's a she, which would help me obtain deeper cover, shhhhhh)

Of course I saw, Aτροπος and cringed a bit.

Greek killed me at seminary and was a small reason why I cut and ran.

[Florence Schmieg]

A few weeks ago Andrea Mitchell appeared on Bill O'Reilly, of all places. Bill has been on a tear recently against the leftward bias at NBC news these days (which I absolutely agree with). She looked really unhappy during that discussion. Her defenses of NBC News were very half-hearted. She tried to distinguish between the News and MSNBC. Her demeanor lacked any energy or conviction. Just an observation.

[theo]

Dan S makes a good point. Perjury cases are very hard to prove because we all get tangled up in memory and perjury requires knowingly telling a lie. Remember how the liberals defended Clinton? Maybe he "forgot" that he was ever alone with Monica.

[clarice]

Absolutely. We;re petrified of TM. He has our FBI files on Pellicano working for him. One slip up and the world knows our deepest, best-hidden secrets.

[Sue]

But you can't answer a simple yes or no, here?

Too scared to contradict Maguire?

If that was addressed to me, let me take a moment and laugh in your face. Unlike other sites, Tom doesn't require a hail leader attitude. We are free to disagree with his pov and do so without fear of being banned, or edited. For proof, you are here, and you are free to act the fool and Tom doesn't refuse you admittance. Go look at FDL or DKos for any of our posts. They aren't there. No opposing view is allowed past the rabid dogs guarding those bastions of free speech.

[clarice]

***files AND Pellicano**********

[David Walser]

Do you believe Russert just lied under oath in open court?

I don't. I think he does not recall the conversation with Libby. He said so himself. Since he does not recall the conversation, he's basing his belief he did not mention anything to do with Wilson's wife (whether by name or otherwise) on his memory of being surprised at the information when he read Novak's column. However, while he may feel it's impossible for him to have known about Plame before Novak's column, it is not impossible. His memory could be wrong. His testimony could be inaccurate. None of that means he lied. Most of us have a tendency to remember things in a manner that makes us look good.

On the other hand, his testimony could be accurate. However, that, in and of itself, does not mean Libby's memory of the call agree with Russert's testimony or Libby is lying. The fact that the two accounts do not agree does NOT mean one or the other is lying. One or both could be wrong without ANYONE telling a lie.

[theo]

Worse yet, Clarice, TM can probably get us banned from here and then we would have to find something useful to do with our lives. Oh the horror!

[hit and run]

Too scared to contradict Maguire?

Yankees suck.

[boris]

Nope Kate-Libby's story is specifically that he did not discuss it with reporters except to learn it from them

False. Libby admitted telling Cooper and Miller. No wonder your posts are so misinformed.

Libby's testimony is that he couldn't have discussed it before Russert because he was "surprised" by Russert's revelation. That logic is unreliable. Hence Libby and Russert's testimonies are both unreliable because both are based on surprise.

Not TRUE, not LIE, just UNRELIABLE.

[Martin]

Theo-

Tom Maguire accuses Russert of having committed perjury in this very post!

Hard to prove-yet easy to accuse it seems.

Do you believe Russert perjured himself?

[Martin]

"Libby admitted telling Cooper and Miller."

You are truly crazy.

[clarice]

He admitted that the affidavit he provided to the Hogan court was false, that he knew it was false (because he remembered he had talked to the FBI) and that he submitted it to the court nevertheless.Further, he admitted he helped his counsel prepare it and signed it knowing the facts were not as represented in the affidavit.

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

Thanks. Wells has to get Libby's crystal clear acknowledgement to the investigators and gj that he first heard of Mrs. Wilson from Cheney ringing in the jurors ears.

Fitz went big case in order to gull the gj and succeeded. If Wells can hammer on Libby's clear acknowledgement of hearing of "Wilson's wife" from Cheney then the jury is facing a real logical conundrum.

Fitz cries "he lied to protect Cheney" and the jury looks at his gj testimony acknowledging Cheney as his "source".

Hmm.

[clarice]

Martin--that is precisely what Libby's gj testimony shows..He says he told Cooper and may have told Miller. He thought he told Miller later than June 23 IIRC.

[clarice]

Libby also told the gj he told Glenn Kessler but Kessler says he didn't.

[theo]

Again, I think perjury is very hard to prove. I do not think it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Russert in fact deliberately lied under oath. But I certainly think it is plausible to argue that he did so. I think the problem is the difference between BELIEF and PROOF. The jurors not only have to belief that it is reasonable to conclude that Libby lied under oath, but that it is unreasonable to conclude anything else. This is a very high standard, whether talking about Libby or Russsert.