The suspense mounts as we obsess over Swopa's live-blogging (Russert 1). However, we have an early indication that his testimony will be lame.
The question of whether Russert weaseled in his statement by maintaining a distinction between knowing Valerie Wilson's name, and knowing something about Joe Wilson's wife seems to have been addressed by Fitzgerald here (but this is a paraphrase, not a transcript):
F: At any time did you [and Libby] discuss the wife of Joseph Wilson?
T: No, because I didn't know who she was until several days later
The defense is up; as of 2:48, we are here:
W: He called you in your managerial capacity of NBC News, right?
T: I didn't know it at first, but yes.
(Wells writes this down, too.)
It's 2:48.
Since I don't know where Wells is going I may not recognize it when we get there.
MORE: In related news, Byron York describes the bending of space and time by Joe Wilson and his apologists. Very quickly, one newly released document is the memo prepared by Dick Cheney's CIA briefer noting his interest in the recent report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium. What is eye-catching is the date, which is Feb 13, 2002. This is *potentially* a big deal becasue the Plame note suggesting her hubby for a Niger trip is dated Feb 12 (see the Senate Intel report).
That jibes with what Libby was told by Grenier (or Grossman) - the CIA was reacting to inquiries from State and Defense regarding the recent DIA report when they teed up Joe; Cheney became one more excuse to send him and a potent name to drop (raise your hand if you think Joe Wilson liked being told that his mission was at the request of the VP; keep your hand down if you think he would have been just as pleased to go at the behest of an Undersecretary of State).
Per York's sources, the Senate never got this memo from the CIA. Interesting - we were assured that this trial would blow the lid off of the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, and maybe it will.
FOR THE COGNOSCENTI: Cecil Turner will feast on the York tidbit; let's hope the rest of us enjoy his "I Told You So" strut.
Oh come on Clarice, I know you folks prefer your delusional echo chamber, but I'm just trying to ease your reentry into reality once both sides have rested.
Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 04:07 PM
Sue:
"Does that make you feel superior?"
It's an ego defense on their part. They feel shame for visiting this site.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 04:07 PM
He's running th clock because DX means long distance and apparently everyone is shit.
Posted by: Committee | February 07, 2007 at 04:07 PM
Excellent Wells here:
Memory problem ocurred in May , a few months before you testified, correct?
yes
You admitted you rerror as the result of your subsequent review of your files?
yes
But for the existance of your written notation, you would have continued to believe that you had not made the call correct?
I did not recall.
And to the Libby call, you have no written notes?
No
(Russert is kind of stuttering. I dont mean to overplay his demeanor, he’s not shaken or anything, but he is no longer control
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 07, 2007 at 04:07 PM
"(Russert is kind of stuttering. I dont mean to overplay his demeanor, he’s not shaken or anything, but he is no longer controlling this situation. It wouldnt be noteworthy if he wasnt so strong in the beginning)"
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 04:07 PM
Buffalo News printed that Russert ’suffered a public memory lapse’, says Wells. Russert is answering slightly defensively.
Memory problem ocurred in May , a few months before you testified, correct?
yes
You admitted you rerror as the result of your subsequent review of your files?
yes
But for the existance of your written notation, you would have continued to believe that you had not made the call correct?
I did not recall.
And to the Libby call, you have no written notes?
No
(Russert is kind of stuttering. I dont mean to overplay his demeanor, he’s not shaken or anything, but he is no longer controlling this situation. It wouldnt be noteworthy if he wasnt so strong in the beginning)
Hmmmm...
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 04:08 PM
Russert doesn't need to 'save the day.' There has been a wealth of evidence produced which is damaging to Libby. You really need to question whether or not it is partisanship talking when one states that the jury will find each and every witness to be unreliable; Wells certainly hasn't done that.
The conspiracy theories thought up by those who are looking to see Libby get off are in many cases ridiculous. They rely upon a huge body of people lying or acting in concert, and ignore the evidence that the small body of people who had the most to lose - WH Exec branch employees - lied and acted in concert.
Posted by: Cycloptichorn | February 07, 2007 at 04:08 PM
W: You're a Buffalo icon?
T: Yes.
W: And this paper criticized you?
T: But they've written so much positive about my family, I take it as it comes.
So russert is purposefully ignoring the point? You gotta love that.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 04:08 PM
"But you will not come on this board and mock snake handling! You will not, you hear me? Some things are sacred and out of bounds and you crossed the line.
Posted by: hit and run | February 07, 2007 at 01:05 PM "
Speaking of that, there's this great picture of me handling an 18' anaconda in Mom's book.
Really!
I survived, it didn't. Not sure what that says.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 04:10 PM
Um, wait a minute. I thought Russert's attorney might testify for the defense?
Maybe this pertains to that:
"Is it your testimony that you did not tell investigators in 2003 that you could not rule it out completely?
No"
Posted by: Enlightened | February 07, 2007 at 04:10 PM
Shit
Posted by: Committee | February 07, 2007 at 04:10 PM
"Oh come on Clarice, I know you folks prefer your delusional echo chamber, but I'm just trying to ease your reentry into reality once both sides have rested."
They are not part of the reality-based community and have desire to be.
Posted by: pete | February 07, 2007 at 04:11 PM
From the Maine guy:
(Russert does this thing that is starting to annoy me. He qualifies all many of his answers with some moral dictum, I’ll try to give an example. Like ‘He said that, but that’s his right to do so.” Russert is the nicest guy in the world it seems, but he doesn’t seem to be accepting his current role.)
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 04:12 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Wow. That Buffalo letter deals with the Hillary/Lazio debate in 2000. When she was running for the senate. (Is Wells a master at research, or what?)
Who rememembers the controversy surrounding Russert's "worst mistake?" (His answer alludes to "not any longer.) Seems everybody can take a memory quiz here?
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 04:12 PM
I wih I knew that Committee's one word comment was for.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 04:13 PM
The conspiracy theories thought up by those who are looking to see Libby get off are in many cases ridiculous.
[snort] More ridiculous than the ones that got him here in the first place? (Wilson was sent at the "behest" of the Vice President; debunked the forgeries; wrote it up in a report; and the Administration was briefed on it; and they LIED about it!!!) Utter nonsense. Most likely: Libby misremembered a couple details months after the conversations. So did everyone else. Prove it was a lie (and try coming up with a sensible theory that explains the "lie" he told), or give it up.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 07, 2007 at 04:13 PM
WHAT not that.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Wait, it says throcult!
Posted by: p | February 07, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Wow! Fitz really must be failing to have the moonbats so upset and out in force. Pete, Martin, Cyclops/TCO -- you all sound desperate and scared. Oooooooooh, watch your back, those evil Cheney/Rove rays might git ya'
Posted by: Sara (Squiggler) | February 07, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Apparently Russert who was moderating a debate between Hillary and Lazio slammed her for defending her husband's conduct. I can't find the letter itself but it is in the NYT archives. Google Russert Buffalo News letter for the headlines.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:15 PM
Not only the fact that it is the Clinton/Lazio debate, but it shows his political bias.
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 07, 2007 at 04:15 PM
Got to agree with Carol on this one.
How is it that none of the JOM team caught the Buffalo letter?
Posted by: jwest | February 07, 2007 at 04:15 PM
pete,
Got that right, we prefer reality to "reality-based."
Should I do a bit of deconstruction for you on that term? Or can you figure it out for yourself? I guess I shouldn't assume that you can, based on your posts.
When a word like reality is modified, especially with a suffix like "-based," it's not strengthening the word, it's weakening it. The implication is that the user is avoiding reality qua reality, and preferring something that is somehow only based on reality. Thus, to put it bluntly, it is a avoidance of reality, not an acceptance of it. The "reasilty-based" cannot handle reality in its raw form; they must first modify it, and do it after the fact as it were, before they can safely process it.
And that, is an apt description of that community indeed.
I'm proud to not be a member of the reality-based community.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 04:17 PM
The Battle of Buffalo
Karl Schwartz letter on New York State Senate campaign debate says man of honor would have stepped in and urged Hillary Clinton not to dignify Tim Russert's vicious attack on her defense of her husband's fidelity; notes that Rick Lazio seized opportunity to further humiliate Mrs Clinton
September 16, 2000 Opinion Letter
MORE ON TIM RUSSERT AND: DEBATING, ELECTIONS, LAZIO, RICK A, CLINTON, BILL, CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM, SCHWARTZ, KARL, NEW YORK STATE
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:17 PM
My fetus needs crack, right now.
Posted by: p | February 07, 2007 at 04:17 PM
cyclops
ignore the evidence that the small body of people who had the most to lose - WH Exec branch employees ..
Why do you say that they had the most to lose, or anything to lose? To date nobody has offered any evidence that any actual crime took place, prior to the "investigation" being launched.
Posted by: james | February 07, 2007 at 04:18 PM
'The conspiracy theories thought up by those who are looking to see Libby get off are in many cases ridiculous. They rely upon a huge body of people lying or acting in concert, and ignore the evidence that the small body of people who had the most to lose - WH Exec branch employees - lied and acted in concert.'
What, you mean its Scootie-boy who's lying and not the parade of witnesses who contridicted him?? Who woulda thought...
Btw, I guess TM's previous post is no longer operative??
Posted by: Cromagnon | February 07, 2007 at 04:18 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Maine Blogger (kudo's galore) is saying in parenthesis that Russert has a courtroom VERBAL TIC. Here's the quote:
(Russert does this thing that is starting to annoy me. He qualifies all many of his answers with some moral dictum, I’ll try to give an example. Like ‘He said that, but that’s his right to do so.” Russert is the nicest guy in the world it seems, but he doesn’t seem to be accepting his current role.)
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 04:18 PM
Cycloptichorn:
"Russert doesn't need to 'save the day.' There has been a wealth of evidence produced which is damaging to Libby. You really need to question whether or not it is partisanship talking when one states that the jury will find each and every witness to be unreliable; Wells certainly hasn't done that."
Wells has done exactly that. Your partisanship is blinding you.
Your criticism might be well taken if it turns out the Libby fans take the canned testimony of the Defense witnesses without a grain of salt.
Here's the closing on Russert:
"You will have to believe Libby chose Russert to purposefully mislead the FBI, someone he would have no reason to trust, and out of the blue he just happened to pick a patsy who happened to have two reporters under him who knew about Wilson's wife, one of whom said words like "all the reporters knew", just like Libby testified Russert told him."
Acquittal on that count I predict. False statement on the FBI notes is more likely conviction.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 04:19 PM
It appears that Martin has not had experience with jury trials.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 07, 2007 at 04:21 PM
After Bond? I don't think so, javani.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:21 PM
Cecil
That's some serious grief-stricken denial. Maybe you wil be allowed conjugal visits with Libby.
Posted by: pete | February 07, 2007 at 04:21 PM
Cecil, there is a perfectly sound theory for why Libby lied: he didn't want to rot in jail for outing a CIA agent.
Occam's razor. Every other theory is far more complex.
Posted by: Cycloptichorn | February 07, 2007 at 04:21 PM
I see Turner- finetuning the "my memory is bad" defense to the "no one purposefully could be this stupid" variation.
It might work!
Posted by: Martin | February 07, 2007 at 04:22 PM
False statement on the FBI notes is more likely conviction.
After Bond's testimony of the wonderful style of FBI note taking? I can't see how any of the FBI counts stand up.
Posted by: ARC: Brian | February 07, 2007 at 04:23 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
As a layman I know what the term "Jury Nullification" means.
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 04:23 PM
Put a fork in Russert. After forgetting his own phone call, he's done.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | February 07, 2007 at 04:23 PM
Conspiracy theories? Wasn't Cathie Martin supposed to be the clincher and blow the entire lid off the conspiracy? Isn't there a new book out about this?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 04:24 PM
Cycloptichorn:
Occam's razor: Armitage, dumb ass.
Posted by: epphan | February 07, 2007 at 04:25 PM
Sorry Cyclo,
Occam's Razor comes down on the side of "his memory sucks" and he plain got it wrong.
Trying to impute motives for lying complicates things.
There are now about 10 examples of witnesses with bad memory on the record in this case. The simplest explanation for discrepancies in testimony is "I don't really remember it well."
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 04:25 PM
Seriously, Sara's last comment is ringing very true.
Posted by: hit and run | February 07, 2007 at 04:26 PM
I mean he actually wrote a note about it and it was something of great personal interest to him--a hometown paper generally adoring of him, critical of his debate moderation and conduct.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:26 PM
cyclops
there is a perfectly sound theory for why Libby lied: he didn't want to rot in jail for outing a CIA agent.
In order for that theory to hold water, we'd need some indication that a CIA agent was outed. Four years after this "investigation" began there is still no sign that this occurred.
Posted by: james | February 07, 2007 at 04:26 PM
Wells has all he needs. There is no way a jury can convict based on Russert's reconstuction of a conversation that he has "no recollection" of. The "impossible" is also based on his recollection, and Wells can show that Gregory and Mitchell may have known leaving that recollection in doubt.
But the bottom line is the principle witness says he has no recollection of the conversation that the case swings upon. That on top of all the other faulty memories that I'm sure will become a litany during the defense's closing arguments.
Posted by: kazinski | February 07, 2007 at 04:26 PM
Can we cut down on the snark?
I'm more interested in how the Jury is listening.
Posted by: Joe | February 07, 2007 at 04:27 PM
I love to watch good lawyering. Beautiful, like an elegant chess match .
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:28 PM
Ooh, good man Wells.
You get in the bias complaint.
Kudos to Kaus for first guessing this. Do you recall telling FBI that Libby called about a bias complaint against Matthews and Hardball?
I dont recall the term bias, but he was upset an very firm
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 07, 2007 at 04:28 PM
Is this what Wells is referencing when the Mainewebreporter Lance is talking about Tim Russert's letter to The Buffalo News-
From Kurtz at The Washington Post-
Russert Redux
Tim Russert has told the Buffalo News he regrets an error he made in a recent Washington Post Magazine interview.
Russert had said he never called News reporter Mark Sommer to complain about a negative review of his performance in moderating a Hillary Clinton-Rick Lazio Senate debate in 2000. But Sommer says in an interview that Russert called him twice about the piece and "was furious. . . . I was struck how a guy who basks in the reputation of being a tough reporter can't handle criticism when it applies to himself."
"I just plain didn't remember it," Russert says in an interview, adding that he's "been called a lot of things by a lot of people" and doesn't object to criticism. His beef, which had led to a clarification in the News, was Sommer's assertion that "Clinton had already answered similar questions" before Russert asked about her charge that a vast right-wing conspiracy was out to get her husband.
Link to Kurtz at Washington Post
Damn Wells is good.
Posted by: roanoke | February 07, 2007 at 04:28 PM
"Cecil, there is a perfectly sound theory for why Libby lied: he didn't want to rot in jail for outing a CIA agent."
It's a perfectly sound reason why they all lied, including the legal interpretation that the recipients of leaks can be prosecuted too.
Problem is, Fitz can't argue that lest he admits grey-area prosecutorial misconduct since there was no crime in actuality. That explains his lame arguments about contractual breach via the NDA's. He tried to get around the no crime issue by having the first witnesses insinuate it. Walton kiboshed that with several instructions, even implying he the judge isn't being told the truth.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 04:29 PM
W: Did you know that Eckinrode was portraying Libby's side of the conversation accurately?
T: I didn't doubt him.
Interesting.... So Wells is trying to suggest that maybe Russert "remembered" his "impossible" conversation based on prompting from the FBI agent Eckinrode.
Posted by: ARC: Brian | February 07, 2007 at 04:29 PM
Does this mean that Libby didn't lob any accusations of Antisemitism in the phone call? Where's Mickey Kaus?
Posted by: Jim E. | February 07, 2007 at 04:29 PM
"Occam's razor: Armitage, dumb ass."
The left insult when they are correct. The right insult when they are wrong. It's a tell.
Posted by: pete | February 07, 2007 at 04:30 PM
Shit. These people are shit. Go somewhere else and shit.
Posted by: Lawr | February 07, 2007 at 04:31 PM
If so, we can figure out what Eckenrode was not a prosecution witness.
Looks like Wells is getting into who was at the Russert "presidential appearance" interview.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:31 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
The jurors, watching Wells, must be thinking "if Russert's worth $5-million-a-year, Wells is worth much, much, more.
Patrick R. Sullivan, the "fork" that should be used on Russert should come from Sandra Day O'Connor's table.
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 04:32 PM
Yep, short term shit? Psychopaths tend to hang around.
IPs are going to be sold to FBI! Isrealis buy over online.
Posted by: Lawr | February 07, 2007 at 04:33 PM
Joe, I agree less snark would be nice. I've asked Malcontent a good faith question (1:05), but got nothing. Maybe Jeff or Martin would like to try. You to Cycloptichorn. I've seen Jeff argue, he knows this case, but hasn't been doing much more than name calling today. Of course, there's plenty of snark directed at him, but it's far friendlier than any of us would get at fdl, in the unlikely event that a dissenting comment would be allowed.
Posted by: Patrick (not Sullivan) | February 07, 2007 at 04:33 PM
Correct? I thought the discussion was from only Russerts side of the conversation?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 04:33 PM
Shit.
Posted by: Lace | February 07, 2007 at 04:34 PM
It's interesting that Wells went for a case that's emothionally parallel with Libby's own call to Russert.
Both were very upset about what they saw as unjust and incorrect criticism. Both appear to have had (or Russert had in both cases, perhaps!) memory problems about things that would seem to be important to them.
In Russert's case it's more dramatic due to the letter he wrote. The act of writing something down, as most of us know, tends to lock it into memory better (which is why we take notes in many cases, not for the notes themselves). There's no record that Libby wrote down his complaint and mailed it off to Russert too.
Very nice choice of rebuttal material. It's rather poetically just that it existed to be used, and already had a rather high public profile.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 04:35 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Tag line for Russert: I dont repeat gossip, so listen carefully.
If nothing else, I'm thrilled BOND laid the groundwork to the jurors, telling them its important to watch body language. (And, that lame foot.)
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 04:35 PM
"Shit. These people are shit. Go somewhere else and shit."
"Yep, short term shit? Psychopaths tend to hang around."
As I said!
Posted by: pete | February 07, 2007 at 04:36 PM
Dan s, It was a brilliant choice--never aim for the ankles, go higher up on cross.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:36 PM
The “unflappable” Mr. Russert is getting “flapped” up side the head.
On Eckenrode’s phone interview of Russert, isn’t it standard procedure to just ask questions about the subject at hand and not to let on what another party said?
Posted by: jwest | February 07, 2007 at 04:38 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Clarice. One of Russert's ankles is already taken.
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 04:39 PM
So, as I am catching the drift of this, Wells is saying that the FBI agent mischaractorized Libby's side of the conversation, then got Russert to say that mis-represented version was wrong. Is that where Wells is taking this?
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Heh. Well just got Russert again. And even FDL has noticed the discrepancy:
W: And you did not claim any privilege of confidentiality?
T: I had treated the conversation in confidence, I did not report on the call. (He's not understanding Wells' point)
W: Did you know that Eckinrode was portraying Libby's side of the conversation accurately?
T: I didn't doubt him.
(Wells points out that Russert later did claim the confidentiality of Libby's call as a reason not to testify. Now there's a brief chat at the bench.)
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 07, 2007 at 04:40 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
And, jwest, Russert "forgot" because the phone call was AUTOMATICALLY off-the-record.
When has news gathering become a job for silent little mice?
I think Russert said "he was wearing" his listening hat, at some point, as an answer to a Wells question. Guy can't walk and chew gum at the same time, it seems.
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 04:41 PM
Clarice,
Yeah, knees are good. Or higher.
Besides, we have enough anklebiters around at the moment.
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 04:41 PM
HEH! Carol
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:41 PM
Witness tampering by Eckenrode? Filling in the call details they just got from Libby so Russert would know what to say later in his 10 minute session with Fitz? Can FBI do that? Rhetorical question...
Posted by: Bill in AZ | February 07, 2007 at 04:42 PM
-- Wells is saying that the FBI agent mischaractorized Libby's side of the conversation, then got Russert to say that mis-represented version was wrong. --
Seems to me that Russert is agreeing with whatever Eckenrode tells him - leaving the FBI free to make a criminal out of an innocent man.
Posted by: cboldt | February 07, 2007 at 04:43 PM
UM BA....
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 04:43 PM
I told you, I am certain that they lied to witnesses about what others had told them.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:44 PM
Dan S.
The word that comes to mind is karma.
Posted by: roanoke | February 07, 2007 at 04:44 PM
From the Maine guy:
Wells knocks it home right here:
Is there any mention in this statement that you freely shared the content of Libby’s call with the FBI agent in Novemeber 2003?
No
Does Shapiro know that you freely discussed the Libby conversation with the FBI?
I dont know
Did you ever have a conversation with him about this?
I do not know, I cant recall
Do you think, given your pattern and practice, that you would have told Shapiro about your free conversation with the FBI without refusing ased on confidentiality?
I do not know, I don’t recall
Wells is frying Russert here. This point is very strong, it shows the potential hypocrisy of NBC’s statement and the subpoena rsistance, since Russert had already spilled the beans so readily and without reservation about an established off the record conversation with Libby.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 04:44 PM
Impeaching the MSM!! From the Maine Web Report.
Wells knocks it home right here:
Is there any mention in this statement that you freely shared the content of Libby’s call with the FBI agent in Novemeber 2003?
No
Does Shapiro know that you freely discussed the Libby conversation with the FBI?
I dont know
Did you ever have a conversation with him about this?
I do not know, I cant recall
Do you think, given your pattern and practice, that you would have told Shapiro about your free conversation with the FBI without refusing ased on confidentiality?
I do not know, I don’t recall
Wells is frying Russert here. This point is very strong, it shows the potential hypocrisy of NBC’s statement and the subpoena rsistance, since Russert had already spilled the beans so readily and without reservation about an established off the record conversation with Libby.
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 07, 2007 at 04:45 PM
The Government is Your Friend. (Especially a special special prosecutor.)
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:46 PM
"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"
I think it's fascinating that Russert has resorted to his usual non-denial denial here, but what if anything can the defense make of it? Is it useful, or just a curiosity? Should Wells have pounced on Russert as soon as he said it, or just left it alone like he did? What do the lawyers think?
Posted by: american in europe | February 07, 2007 at 04:46 PM
Wells is frying Russert here. This point is very strong, it shows the potential hypocrisy of NBC’s statement and the subpoena rsistance, since Russert had already spilled the beans so readily and without reservation about an established off the record conversation with Libby.
Ouch.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 04:46 PM
And it certainly bears repeating!
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 04:47 PM
Well, as per that last in the MWR, we now know why Russert's attorney might testify for the defense.
Posted by: Alcibiades | February 07, 2007 at 04:47 PM
What a bunch of lying hypocrits. Sheesh
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 04:48 PM
Roan
--The word that comes to mind is karma.--
Indeed.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 04:48 PM
american in europe,
At this point I suspect that is a verbal tic. As Lance pointed out, Russert likes expanding his replies to more than yes or no. It's a TV personality reflex. His words are important and he's gonna say more than "yes" or "no."
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 04:49 PM
You think maybe Russert concealed from his counsel that he had already discussed the contents of the call with the FBI?
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 04:49 PM
aie--He's monkey fishing--save the best for last and all.
So, Russert hasn't much recollection. Eckenrode calls with a cock and bull story of what he says Libby is saying and plants that in Russert's head..then they call him in for a "presidential visit" give him some questions about the conversation and he answers back what they planted in his consciousness.
Short NBC.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:49 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Judge lets in ATTORNEY letter (Fitzgerald to Russert's attorney). Wells puts it up as an EXHIBIT.
And, Maine Blogger writes:
Wells knocks it home right here:
Is there any mention in this statement that you freely shared the content of Libby’s call with the FBI agent in Novemeber 2003?
No
Posted by: Carol Herman | February 07, 2007 at 04:49 PM
Ranger..
and on that note - he had given a story and HAD to stick to it.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 07, 2007 at 04:50 PM
-- Wells is frying Russert here. This point is very strong, it shows the potential hypocrisy of NBC's statement and the subpoena rsistance --
There are plausible and reasonable "explanations" for what appears, on the surface, to be hypocritical.
In general, Russert made the point that he took Libby's call not as coming from a source, but as coming from a viewer. However, as the public view of the case is elevated via subpoena, a different set of considerations comes into play - the press has an "image" to protect (just as the WH and OVP did and do), and some of what goes on is just for show. See too, Russert testified in compliance with the subpoena, with nary a fight.
Posted by: cboldt | February 07, 2007 at 04:50 PM
Wells, sure doesn't let us down! Darn, I would like to know if you can hear a pin drop in the media room? NBC reporters are gonna have a time reporting on this, because their reports will be compared to others.
Oh yeah, I like Wells.
Posted by: centralcal | February 07, 2007 at 04:51 PM
"Wells is frying Russert here. This point is very strong, it shows the potential hypocrisy of NBC’s statement and the subpoena rsistance, since Russert had already spilled the beans so readily"
He's showing Russert has the same ethics as Bob Novak, but if that helps Libby, I don't know.
NOw everyone knows,
Don't leak to Novak,
and,
don't leak to Russert.
Posted by: Javani | February 07, 2007 at 04:51 PM
This trial, occuring largely at the "behest" of the Beltway press corp is making the Washington press look so completely awful. I swear, without hyperbole that I trust the reporters at the local "shopper" more than these guys. Miller? Cooper? Russert? It's all about access, not reporting. Heck, even the fdl folks believe that.
Posted by: Patrick (not Sullivan) | February 07, 2007 at 04:52 PM
-- Short NBC. --
Rumor has it that Immelt will put the unit up for sale.
Posted by: cboldt | February 07, 2007 at 04:52 PM
You think maybe Russert concealed from his counsel that he had already discussed the contents of the call with the FBI?
No, but we will never know because it is priviledged.
Posted by: Jane | February 07, 2007 at 04:52 PM
I think J Walton now has a good idea what has been going on..Keep an eye out on his discretionary rulings from now on --the rope is going to be yanked tighter and tigher.
Posted by: clarice | February 07, 2007 at 04:52 PM
Eckenrode hmmm...his name keeps surfacing. He was so gungho to testify in this case.
Posted by: kate | February 07, 2007 at 04:53 PM
Well, it gets even worse for Russert. Now Wells seems to be building the argument that Russert made a false pleading to the court in his motion to squash.
Posted by: Ranger | February 07, 2007 at 04:53 PM
"Filing outlines professional credentials of Tim Russert.
Says he has developed relationships throughout government, and communicates with them formally and informally. Regardless of the circumstances, there is an understanding that their conversations with him are in confidence.
(It is so obvious what has happened here, I assume Russert gets it. He is answering slowly and quietly.)
The filing goes on to say that , without this understanding, sources will stop talking to him.
It says that Russert understands on information and beleif that the special prosecutors are investigating the plame leak. He also understands that the special prosecutor compells me to testify that i spoke with a certain official, and to disclose the content of the conversation.
He says he cannot provide such testimony without violating the understanding that he shares with his sources that the communciations will be held in confidence."
Posted by: Dan S | February 07, 2007 at 04:54 PM
I would think haveing your lawyers letter as testimony a "bad thing"
Posted by: Joe | February 07, 2007 at 04:54 PM