From The Juror's Mouth...

Denis Collins, former journalist and an author of a book on the history of spying: "The primary thing which convinced us on most of the accounts was the conversation... the alleged conversation... with Tim Russert...," he said.

TIME tells it a bit more usefully:

During the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity, Libby told the grand jury he heard about Plame being a CIA officer from NBC's Tim Russert. Libby testified that he recalled being "surprised" at the news during his conversation with Russert. The jury, looking at their compilation of facts posted on the wall, were convinced Libby already knew about Plame at that point. Denis Collins, 57, a novelist and former journalist who served on the jury, said this discrepancy persuaded them that Libby had perjured himself.

Well.  As to the Russert conversation, possible doubt-inducing explanations include the following:

1.  Libby was sincere but mistaken, and had the breakthrough phone call with another reporter, possibly Bob Novak on the 9th.

2.  Russert was sincere but mistaken - the gist of his story was that he could not remember the Libby call on the 10th or 11th, but since he remembers learning about Plame in the Novak column (published on the 14th) he could not have mentioned her to Libby.

Fine, but... the Novak column hit the news wires on the morning of the 11th.  Since Russert's story is undated, maybe an NBC producer slipped him an embargoed copy of the column for his perusal on the 11th.  Impossible?  Worth checking?  How come no one has?

3.  Russert is, hmm, misremembering in order to conceal sources.  David Gregory received a leak on the morning of the 11th, according to the memory-challenged Ari Fleischer.  Or perhaps Andrea Mitchell had received a Plame leak from a source whom she and Russert would prefer to protect.

All that said, if the jury focused on Libby's surprise rather than the fact of the conversation, believing Russert is not an issue.  Since that was essentially my prediction, I can't get as exercised as I would like.  My earlier guess:

As to the rest, the jury could (and IMHO, ought to) have reasonable doubt as to whether Libby sincerely believes (or actually) did hear about Ms. Plame from Tim Russert.  However, they might not also believe that the Plame news surprised him - in other words, they might reject the "I Forgot" part of Libby's story.  That would result in convictions on counts 1, 2, and 4, depending on how the jury interprets any "materiality" qualifications in the jury instructions.

I still want to hear from David Gregory, just for starters.  Eventually, someone ought to grill some NBC producers and see whether they might have had access to the Novak column on the 11th, either directly or from a contact in the news biz.  Had Fitzgerald been running a serious leak investigation (or even a serious perjury investigation) he would have done this himself just to pin down a loose end and maybe avoid a serious mistake.  Oh, but then he couldn't have indicted Libby as a way-station on the road to Dick Cheney - my bad.

Or, if NBC News had investigative journalists and an interest in the truth, they would examine this themselves.  Never happen.  Clearly, protecting Tim "The Franchise" Russert trumps other considerations.

Comments

[BarbaraS]

The appontment was for this issue--he says this issue is over. Gonzales could have always fired him,except for political considerations. Now, it's time to revoke the appointment, Fitz having asserted he's completed this task.

It would be wonderful if Bush would fire Fitzgerald as SP and as U.S. Attorney. It will not happen though.

[David Scherrey]

As it happens, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Libby had crossed legal paths before. Before he joined the Bush Administration, Mr. Libby had, for a number of years in the 1980s and 1990s, been a lawyer for Marc Rich. Mr. Rich is the oil trader and financier who fled to Switzerland in 1983, just ahead of his indictment for tax-evasion by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bill Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich in 2001. The pardon so infuriated Justice lawyers who had worked on the case that the Southern District promptly launched an investigation into whether the pardon had been "proper." One former prosecutor we spoke to described the Rich case as "the single most rancorous case in the history of the Southern District."

Two of the prosecutors who worked on the Rich case over the years were none other than Mr. Fitzgerald and James Comey who while Deputy Attorney General appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Southern District for five years starting in 1988, at the same time that Mr. Libby was developing a legal theory of Mr. Rich's innocence in a bid to get the charges dropped. The prosecutors never did accept the argument, but Leonard Garment, who brought Mr. Libby onto the case in 1985, says that he believes Mr. Libby's legal work helped set the stage for Mr. Rich's eventual pardon. Fitzgerald and Comey selectively prosecuted Libby--and not Armitage or any other shiny objects--because they were still pissed about Rich.

[AMDG]

I had thought that Libby testified to the GJ (and told the FBI) that he first heard about Secret Agent Girl from Cheney. His testimony regarding first hearing it from Russert was more of an attempt to recollect what his frame of mind was when he spoke to Russert.

Javert should be forced to go steady with Rosie O'Donnell

[hit and run]

lacqui!!!!!
Not to worry about beer, I live in the People's Republic of Austin. Plenty of Lone Star at the ready.

Welcome. You're family.

[topsecretk9]

COLLINS, DENIS PATRICK
FLUSHING,NY 11365

7/28/1998

$300

People for the American Way

----

Same one "n" spelling, but this was Plames big contribution too.

[jerry]

New idea, did Novak consult with Toensing before writing his column, or was there a prior more formal "finding" for the WH/right wing wingnuts?

[Sue]

Not to worry about beer, I live in the People's Republic of Austin. Plenty of Lone Star at the ready.

Sheesh. H&R will love you.

I was just concerned I wouldn't have much to add

Just mentioning plenty of Lone Star is enough to add for some of us. ::grin::

not pointing fingers at anyone...mind you...

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Jerry: He "consulted" with the CIA and they confirmed his questions.

[MayBee]

This is weird. I can't get to Russert's Feb 9 transcript on Imus. It keeps coming up as McCains Feb 28. Can someone else get to it?

[Syl]

jerry

What if Novak HAD consulted with Toensing? What would he ask her? Is Val covert? She'd say 'No' and Novak would go to print.

As is actual procedure, Novak went to the CIA--the authority, you know. CIA acknowledged she worked there and the fact she was acknowledged meant she wasn't covert so Novak went to print.

Now if Val WERE covert who would be responsible for outing her? THE FRIGGIN' CIA.

[Pat]

Now, it seems passing strange that Libby worked on Rich's pardon. Lawyers do what lawyers do, no matter how slimy the client. But that seems to be the only reason why Fitzgerald would go after Libby even though Armitage had been identified as the leaker.

The Clintonistas are happy because a man who helped a major Clinton donor get a Clinton Presidential pardon is going down?

Apparently so. Here's Hillary on the case.

I suppose Libby is too much of a gentleman to expose the Clinton-Rich connections but that could be in play real soon now.

[MayBee]

OK, I listened to Imus and I don't think Russert said the dates on there for Clarice.

[Terrye]

Syl:

I wonder why they did not tell him not to print. That has happened before when covert people were involved. Why not just say: don't print it.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Libby was counsel for Marc Rich, but not for the pardon. His association predated the pardon by a couple of years or more.

[MaidMarion]

Clarice,

I have in my notes that the FBI interviewed Russert in Nov 2003, but nothing more specific than that.

[cathyf]

So I take it that the new rule for students is this: Suppose something is covered in 4 different lectures, and then is on problem sets 6 times, and then the TA shows you the problem 3 times in 3 different recitation sections, and then it is on the midterm. You get the problem wrong on each problem set and the midterm. Two days before the final, you are studying with 5 other students, and one patiently explains the problem again. You finally get it, and say, "Oh! That's how it works!" And you get the problem right on the final.

You will be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice.

[Pofarmer]

I wonder why they did not tell him not to print. That has happened before when covert people were involved. Why not just say: don't print it.

I suspect it has something to do with MOM.

[PeterUK]

Here is a Dennis Collins,why not see if any match the juror.

[PeterUK]

"From time to time I will check in to watch you jerks waste your lives while destroying them. Dig in!"

That is,of course,if the men in the leather trench coats don't get you first.