Russert, Semi-Live

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.

Comments

[Martin]

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.

[Javani]

Sue:

"Does that make you feel superior?"

It's an ego defense on their part. They feel shame for visiting this site.

[Committee]

He's running th clock because DX means long distance and apparently everyone is shit.

[Alcibiades]

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

[Dan S]

"(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)"

[Ranger]

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...

[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.

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.

[Jane]

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.

[Dan S]

"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.

[Enlightened]

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"

[Committee]

Shit

[pete]

"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.

[Jane]

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.)

[Carol Herman]

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?

[topsecretk9]

I wih I knew that Committee's one word comment was for.

[Cecil Turner]

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.

[topsecretk9]

WHAT not that.

[p]

Wait, it says throcult!

[Sara (Squiggler)]

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'

[clarice]

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.

[Alcibiades]

Not only the fact that it is the Clinton/Lazio debate, but it shows his political bias.

[jwest]

Got to agree with Carol on this one.

How is it that none of the JOM team caught the Buffalo letter?

[Dan S]

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.

[clarice]

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

[p]

My fetus needs crack, right now.

[james]

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.

[Cromagnon]

'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??

[Carol Herman]

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.)

[Javani]

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.

[Other Tom]

It appears that Martin has not had experience with jury trials.

[clarice]

After Bond? I don't think so, javani.

[pete]

Cecil

That's some serious grief-stricken denial. Maybe you wil be allowed conjugal visits with Libby.

[Cycloptichorn]

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.

[Martin]

I see Turner- finetuning the "my memory is bad" defense to the "no one purposefully could be this stupid" variation.

It might work!

[ARC: Brian]

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.

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

As a layman I know what the term "Jury Nullification" means.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Put a fork in Russert. After forgetting his own phone call, he's done.

[topsecretk9]

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?

[epphan]

Cycloptichorn:

Occam's razor: Armitage, dumb ass.

[Dan S]

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."

[hit and run]

Seriously, Sara's last comment is ringing very true.

[clarice]

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.

[james]

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.

[kazinski]

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.

[Joe]

Can we cut down on the snark?

I'm more interested in how the Jury is listening.

[clarice]

I love to watch good lawyering. Beautiful, like an elegant chess match .

[Alcibiades]

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

[roanoke]

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.

[Javani]

"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.

[ARC: Brian]

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.

[Jim E.]

Does this mean that Libby didn't lob any accusations of Antisemitism in the phone call? Where's Mickey Kaus?

[pete]

"Occam's razor: Armitage, dumb ass."

The left insult when they are correct. The right insult when they are wrong. It's a tell.

[Lawr]

Shit. These people are shit. Go somewhere else and shit.

[clarice]

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.

[Carol Herman]

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.

[Lawr]

Yep, short term shit? Psychopaths tend to hang around.

IPs are going to be sold to FBI! Isrealis buy over online.

[Patrick (not Sullivan)]

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.

[topsecretk9]

Russert recounts the same testimony as earlier, gave Shapiro number,etc During Nov 2003 FBI interview, you did not refuse to answer the questions of the FBI agent of you July 2003 phonecall with Libby? I did talk to him yes You talked about the conversation in general, what Libby said to you, what you said to Libby, correct? correct at no time did you assert any priviledge of confidentiality as reason to refuse to answer Eckenroads questions? I treated it as in confidence, I didnt report on it. Much like I treated the Libby complaint call. But you freely discussed Libby’s call with Eckenroad? Eckenroad had already spoken with Eckenroad and made accusations that I told him were false.

Correct? I thought the discussion was from only Russerts side of the conversation?

[Lace]

Shit.

[Dan S]

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.

[Carol Herman]

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.)

[pete]

"Shit. These people are shit. Go somewhere else and shit."

"Yep, short term shit? Psychopaths tend to hang around."

As I said!

[clarice]

Dan s, It was a brilliant choice--never aim for the ankles, go higher up on cross.

[jwest]

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?

[Carol Herman]

FROM CAROL HERMAN

Clarice. One of Russert's ankles is already taken.

[Ranger]

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?

[Alcibiades]

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.)

[Carol Herman]

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.

[Dan S]

Clarice,

Yeah, knees are good. Or higher.

Besides, we have enough anklebiters around at the moment.

[clarice]

HEH! Carol

[Bill in AZ]

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...

[cboldt]

-- 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.

[topsecretk9]

UM BA....

NBC statement: Says Russert received subpoena to testify before a special grand jury investigating the Plame leak. Russert and NBC intened to fight the subpoena, Russert was not the recipient of the leak. NBC is resisting becuase fo the chilling effect, Shapiro says American public will be deprived of information becuase of this, becuase people will simply stop speakign with the press.

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.

[clarice]

I told you, I am certain that they lied to witnesses about what others had told them.

[roanoke]

Dan S.

The word that comes to mind is karma.

[Jane]

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.

[Alcibiades]

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.

[clarice]

The Government is Your Friend. (Especially a special special prosecutor.)

[american in europe]

"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?

[Ranger]

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.

[Jane]

And it certainly bears repeating!

[Alcibiades]

Well, as per that last in the MWR, we now know why Russert's attorney might testify for the defense.

[Jane]

What a bunch of lying hypocrits. Sheesh

[topsecretk9]

Roan

--The word that comes to mind is karma.--

Indeed.

[Dan S]

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."

[Ranger]

You think maybe Russert concealed from his counsel that he had already discussed the contents of the call with the FBI?

[clarice]

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.

[Carol Herman]

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

[topsecretk9]

Ranger..

and on that note - he had given a story and HAD to stick to it.

[cboldt]

-- 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.

[centralcal]

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.

[Javani]

"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.

[Patrick (not Sullivan)]

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.

[cboldt]

-- Short NBC. --

Rumor has it that Immelt will put the unit up for sale.

[Jane]

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.

[clarice]

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.

[kate]

Eckenrode hmmm...his name keeps surfacing. He was so gungho to testify in this case.

[Ranger]

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.

[Dan S]

"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."

[Joe]

I would think haveing your lawyers letter as testimony a "bad thing"