
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be live-bloggers. Trying to keep up with the tapes of rapid-fire Fitz and soft-spoken Scooter was no fun. But now we're back in the world of live witnesses, who hopefully will pause for breath more often …
NOTES: (1) This is not an official transcript — just a very loose paraphrase, at best — so don't treat it as one. Even exchanges that look like verbatim dialogue are just the gist of each question and each answer, with any key phrases or pauses included as best I can. (2) My own notes will be in parentheses and/or italics. (3) I'll tell you the time at the end of each update; expect about 15-20 minutes before the next one. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (4) I didn't write the book on the Valerie Plame outing — but you should buy it, if you haven't already. If you're wondering who this "Swopa" character is, my previous writings on Plamemania can be found here.
We begin with some preliminary Fitz-versus-Wells squabbling over whether Tim Russert can be asked about Andrea Mitchell's statement (which she later disavowed) that Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA employment was "generally known" in certain press circles, since he's commented on TV about it. Fitz says "there's no TV exception to the hearsay rule," but Wells insists that his reasons and manner of asking will be justified, so please don't rule against him before he can present related evidence. Walton seems a bit bemused and is willing to wait and see.
F: The government calls Tim Russert.
(Tim is sworn in, takes his seat, gives his name)
F: To end the mystery, how long have you been on crutches?
T: Ten weeks, broken ankle.
(Fitz asks for Tim's educational and work history)
It's 2:30.
(Fitz asks for structure of NBC News, NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, Hardball, etc.)
F: When did you become aware of the guest on MTP on July 6, 2003?
T: Not until Sat. night, it was a late booking.
F: When did you return from vacation?
T: On Tuesday, the 8th
F: Talk to Scooter Libby that week?
T: Yes, don't remember the day.
F: Tell me about the call.
T: I was in my office, call came through, he was agitated about something he had seen on Hardball. I had not seen the program.
F: What programs?
T: I was later able to learn, Jul. 8th and 9th.
F: Did he call you often?
T: No.
F: How could you tell he was upset? What did he say?
T: "What the hell is going on with Hardball?" "I'm tired of hearing my name on the air all the time." "What he's saying isn't true."
F: What did you tell him?
T: I said it wasn't my responsibility, so I gave him names (list them)
F: At any time did you discuss the wife of Joseph Wilson?
T: No, because I didn't know who she was until several days later
F: Did Libby ever tell you?
T: No.
F: What would you have done?
T: Gotten more information from him and then discussed with my producers, would have been a significant story
F: Did he say off the record?
T: My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified. So I didn't go on air and talk about it, but I told Neal Shapiro and told him I'd
F: Remember when you heard claims about Ms. Wilson?
T: Read Novak column in WaPo on Monday, July 14 in afternoon. I said, "Wow, this is significant." Went to work and asked people we were working with what they knew.
F: Did anyone say they knew?
Just the opposite.
F: Did you receive a subpoena about this later?
T: Yes. We fought it. (spiel about rights of press)
F: What happened when Judge Hogan ruled otherwise?
T: I testified.
F: Where?
T: In NBC lawyers' office.
F: Under oath?
T: Yes.
F: No further questions.
(Ted Wells begins cross-examination.)
W: You said Libby call began confidential and became a complaint, right?
T: Correct.
W: But complaint began right away… so confidential part lasted a nanosecond, right?
T: A complaint, but I kept it confidential
W: You and Libby are not friends?
T: Acquaintances, not friends?
W: Ever been to his house?
T: No.
(More questions like this — ever met his kids, gone to relationship, sporting events, etc. Tim says no.)
W: Even your professional relationship is limited, right?
T: Just meeting when VP is on MTP, etc.
W: You are not indebted to Libby in any way, right?
T: Right.
W: You have never indicated that you would assist Libby in telling a false story to the FBI, right?
T: Right.
W: Do you accept characterization that he called you as a viewer?
T: Well, I don't normally take complaint calls. (this is a paraphrased exchange, not quite so glib in reality)
W: He did not call as a source, though.
T: Right.
(Wells feels this is worth writing on a display.)
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.
(Wells asks various questions establishing that Russert is a big cheese at NBC — Fitz objects, and it's sustained,when Wells asks if Russert is paid more than $5 million/year.)
(Wells then goes through several quotes from Russert — books, interviews — on his approach to journalism, always aggressive, always seeking information)
W: When you returned from vacation, Niger/uranium story was big, right?
T: Yes.
W: You understand that OVP and VP himself were part of the story, right?
W: You saw Wilson on MTP, even on vacation, right?
T: Yes.
W: How did Wilson come to appear?
T: Producer saw op-ed on advance wire, invited him to appear.
W: Is this typical?
T: Wasn't my decision.
W: Is it what you do?
T: Not usually, don't have time.
W: You didn't ask Libby any questions about Wilson when you had him on the phone?
T: That's right.
W: You had the chief of staff of the VP on the phone, and
T: It was very much a listening mode — he was very agitated, not in the mood to talk.
W: But you didn't take the opportunity?
T: He was saying VP wasn't involved, I took what he said in the spirit he was offering it.
W: Weren't people at NBC trying to learn about Wilson trip?
T; Yes, they were.
W: Why didn't you ask chief of staff of VP?
T: Didn't have opportunity.
W: Why not?
T: Was complainding about program I hadn't seen, so I did
W: Wouldn't have been natural for you to ask, though?
T: Wasn't a natural phone call. Never had one like that from such a high official, complaining and agitated.
W: But such an aggressive journalist, such a big story
T: What I said is what happened.
W: Do you have a present recollection of not discussing Wilson's wife, are you just reasoning backwards from the fact that you did not know about her until Novak's column.
T: I have no recollection, but it would have been impossible.
It's 3:02.
W: Conversation was in July 2003, right?
T: Yes.
W: First interview with FBI was four months later, right?
T: Right.
W: You have no notes of the conversation, right?
T: Right.
W: No contemporary documentation of the call, right?
T: Right.
W: You don't even recall if it was one or two calls, right?
T: I just remember one call.
W: Do you recall telling the FBI it might have been one, or two?
T: I just remember one call, no recollection of a second one.
(Wells shows Tim his FBI interview.)
T: I just remember one call, not the second.
W: You don't recall the date of the call.
T: Right.
W: Did you tell the FBI that you could not rule out absolutely that you talked about Wilson's wife?
T:
W: Did you tell FBI in November 2003 that you have many conversations and that it is hard to reconstruct one from several months ago?
T: I may have.
W: Is that your opinion now?
T: Yes.
W: Do you remember telling FBI that a general buzz was going around Joe Wilson?
T: Yes.
W: Isn't it true that a "buzz" might include rumors that are circulating?
T: We try to stay away from rumors.
W: But still can be a source for further investigation, right?
T: (missed this answer, wasn't significant)
W: Part of the "buzz" around Joe Wilson was about his trip to Niger and his wife's employment, right?
T: There was a pre- and post-Novak buzz… after the Novak column, it took on a new dimension,
W: (confusing question)
T: I don't know what that means, but I know that I didn't know about Wilson's wife. That is a significant fact that I would have reported and investigated.
W: When was the first time that you reported
T: I didn't report on it, but we worked diligently on it and debated after Novak column whether we would discuss it.
W: You didn't pursue it right away?
T: We took national security considerations seriously.
W: It was basically public knowledge, not a secret
T: That was very much debated.
W: (pause) After you deposition with Mr. Fitzgerald, NBC released a statement.
(Wells shows statement to Russert)
It's 3:21. Switching to a new thread.



126 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
F I T Z 111
Swopa and Jane et al!
SWOPA!
SWOPA! FITZ!
EPU’d – did they run Russert’s crutches through a scanner?
Ten weeks! That’s some messy break.
Unless someone keeps coming and breakin’ it over again for him. Just to remind him like, of what he should say.
Shedd
Pincus had something on the NSC being involved in October 2003, maybe Shedd, per the Fitzgerald mention at the end of the Libby testimony.
Drive-by! Switz! (Back to lurkage.)
Ed*ard Teller @
5
A reference to the Jackal movie?
woooohoooooooo. It’s Timmeh!
Ask him if Cheney has reconstituted his nuclear weapons.
-
Ack! I don’t care about Timmeh’s education and work history!!!! I want the GOOD STUFF!!!
What is it with people in this trial and crutches? I remember Libby had crutches when he was indicted or going before GJ…
QuentinCompson @ 10
Okay, I’ve spit Coke and coffee on my computer screen before, but never yogurt!!!
From over at the Gabbly public chat:
Jane, time to dust off that lovely pic by Monk…you which one, Fitz as Jesus… ;-)
twolf1 — you got the Road Rules handy? I have to leave and pick up a kid at school, already late waiting for Gimpy Pumpkin to arrive.
F: Mr. Russert, tell us about your hatred of Chris Matthews
Ask Timmeh why he hates America!
Go FDL and Godspeed.
Here’s an invitation. When the server load gets high, as it DEFINITELY will now that Timmeh’s on the stand — you may wanna join some of us at a live-chat on another server, over at
http://gabbly.com/firedoglake.com
It’s a fun kinda chat-app. We’ve had as many as 35 folx in there at one point earlier today. It’s a good place to discuss off-Libby stuff… Rayne introduced it a few days back and imho it’s cool. Sometimes we get harrassed by hackers, in which case we retreat to a private redoubt. Others of us know how to get its URL to you without publishing it here.
If you wanna join us, C U over in chat-land. Remember, because Gabbly runs on a completely other server somewhere on the ‘net, using it’ll take some of the heavy load off the FDL servers while Timmeh is walking over hot FitzCoals later…
Perfect timing!
Ive been dealing with the fallout of the surprise L&I inspection all morning. Just got here to see Timmeh the Tool’s testimony!
SIC ‘EM FITZ!
SWOPA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And now for the GRAND FINALE!!! :tapes hand to desk to keep from hitting refresh button:
BRAVO for all this amazing coverage folks!
Timmeh tooltime
New visitors to FDL liveblog of Libby Trial, please read
The liveblogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Marcy is updating only every 15 minutes or so, and timestamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that. Also please be judicious in your use of comments (see below), and how often you refresh them, to reduce demands on the servers.
Peterr wrote:
A few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers. .
FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.
Here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:
1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.
2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.
3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.
4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.
5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.
6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.
Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods.
If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.
That’s also how Marcy makes her updates on the action in the courthouse. It keeps all the courtroom action in one place. (If she did it in the comments, her jewels would be scattered among our great questions and snark.) But have mercy on the servers, and don’t keep pounding away at them by reloading the page every 30 seconds to find The Latest New Thing. If she can wait 15 minutes to update, you can wait 15 minutes to reload.
And if you’re able, toss a few $$, euros, sheckles, or other fun currencies into the FDL donation basket up there on the right side of the page. That’s what makes this all possible.
Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.
************************
also…. please help defray costs for this liveblogging effort by donating (buttons at top right of page). While FDL people are doing this work gratis, FDL had to rent an apartment for them to stay at, plus there are meals, travel, and other expenses to be covered.
Donations with 7 cents added (i.e. $50.07) are used specifically to support this live blog effort. Other donations will be used to support the site in general (like paying for bandwidth, etc….)
Thanx
James Boyce has an essay up at HuffPo today which is timely. He doesn’t reference fdl’s coverage of this trial, but articulates what a lot of us have felt during this trial coverage:
Those that heard Nixon debate Kennedy on the radio thought that Nixon had won easily.
Those that saw the event on television made Kennedy President.
We are living through the second moment as the two worlds of modern politics collide.
And it’s come as a shock to legacy operatives who were born, and raised and lived and won elections in a world that is flat out gone.
Not just altered, or different, but gone gone.
The ultimate impact of new media, blogs and YouTube, instant messaging and BlogTalkRadio, is a complete destruction of traditional roles and functions of the political process – not to mention the removal of media barriers that once shielded politicians.
something to think about as Russert and other reporters continue to testify.
Worth reading Boyce’s entire article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..40642.html
From today’s Froomkin column, a shout-out to Jane’s blog about the trial!!!
White House Watch 2/7/07
Rayne, that was hilarious, one of my favorite movies!!!
Ooh, poor Timmeh. Musta broke his ankle running after Lassie…
Andrea Mitchell Told Russert About Plame…who then told Libby is what Team Cover Up will assert while Tim testifies that Scooter is a bold faced liar.
It all has to do with these statements she made about it on Imus..
Bionic @ 6
Oh, thank God it was his ankle! I was afraid someone had broken Timmy’s kneecaps! hehe
This is madness. I’m on the edge of my seat at work, a bundle of nerves.
I Luv me some Toobz.
From AP, via MSNBC.com:
Timmeh on crutches: the sympathy card.
Click on one of the above links to throw FDL a few bucks as a thank you for this outstanding coverage. I did.
Tim testifying without a teleprompt or video clips is a little like W testifying without Shooter by his side.
hey Tim – why did Buffalo cut Jimmy Leohnard.
I have been addicted to cocaine, caffeine and nicotine!
Thi addiction to the refresh button is the most powerful one yet.
Forgive me servers….I may be compulsive
peeking in from work – (mods forgive me!)
1. is this a live thread ?
2, got nothin’ past 2:30 – is that correct ?
I’m not addicted to FDL or this coverage. I can quit any time I want to
*stuffs hand in mouth to avoid refreshing every two minutes*
and I really have a lot of work to do
*which will wait patiently until Timmy finishes his testimony*
’cause this stuff really isn’t that interesting anyway
*re-reading feverishly to pick up details*
Ok. I need an intervention.
Balrog @
30
I’m sure my client will understand why I’ll be arriving ill-prepared for our meeting.
Yayyyyy!!!!
Good job Swopa.
Gang — I beg you. The servers are going to get quite a work-out this afternoon. Please try to keep any and all comments on topic, brief as possible, and confined to questions or comments about testimony or trial or legal issues. These liveblog threads eat a lot of bandwidth and the last thing any of us wants is for the site to crash during this testimony. Thank you!
cbl @
37
Live thread
Still at 2:30
Breathe!
This should make for an exciting afternoon. Thanks FDL.
litigatormom @ 23
Furthermore, Cheney Doesn’t Share. (Somehow your link doesn’t have a comments section?)
What is it with people in this trial and crutches? I remember Libby had crutches when he was indicted or going before GJ…
The horse’s head in the bed wasn’t threatening enough.
This is like a scene where you have mob bosses entering the courtroom in wheelchairs and wearing oxygen hoping not only to appear too frail to have committed any misdeed, but also pining for house arrest out of medical necessity instead of doing hard time in the big house.
10 weeks seems like a loonngg time to be on crutches. Sympathy factor?
cbl @
37
Yes, it’s live.
Merciless- I’m lying on the floor in a fetal position w/ withdrawl cramps raging thru my abdominal area, crying tears of frustration because I just can’t quit this!@#$%^&* AHHHAHHHHHHOOOOHHHHAOOOOOOOOOHHHHH
Is the courtroom dense with the miasma of narcissism and unhealthy father-love?
Has Big Russ been mentioned yet?
10 weeks seems like a loonngg time to be on crutches. Sympathy factor?
Old age ain’t for sissies.
-
So umm Libby gets a break, and the Tim R? What – are – the chances?
Folks—Christy asked nicely…let’s not change her disposition…remember…she’s a reddhedd.
There is a good article reviewing the media’s participation and complicity in Plamegate. IT’s by Eric Boehlert: “Scooter Libby and the media debacle” from yesterday at mediamatters:
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200702060006
NBC is owned by General Electric — the world’s largest manufacturer of (wait for it ) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Relentless propaganda has trained everyone to think of light blubs when they hear “G.E.” What they should be thinking of are the mangled corpses of Third World peasants.
F: What do the people in the blogosphere call you?
Timmeh: They call me Mr. Potatohead and Pumpkinhead.
F: Why?
Timmeh: My last name is Russert, that’s also a type of potato. I suppose there is the Irish heritage thing, plus don’t you think it looks like a pile of mashed potatoes?
From AP, via MSNBC.com:
ET 24
Thanks for the headsup re: Boyce article.
It’s HIGH TIME the system changed. It has been all too easy, way too long, for the cheaters & liars to hide their antics & spoon-feed a diet of pure spin to the public.
I say YAYYYYYY! Let’s fling those doors open, and let a whole lotta fresh air in. If it makes the Judyjudyjudys & Timmehs cough & splutter, so be it.
We want our country back! NOW!
Go Fitzer! ;->
-retracted- stupid question.
That’s it, Fitz got him!! Lying little scooter, best buddies of the shooter, gonna be convicted and hopefully convicted!
oddball @
35
Funniest comment all day, thanks for a laugh among all this suspense.
This is one thing that the Plamegate has made very clear. The default state for any conversation is off the record. Quotes are all negotiated. That was first made clear (to me, maybe till then I was naive) when Cooper said that he called Rove to give him a heads up on a story so that Rove could prepare a quote.
It looks pretty much like this is true of everybody.
Hasn’t Russert now confirmed that Libby perjured himself, since at no time does it appear that Russert told Libby anything about Plame?
I meant evicted, but you get it!
P.S. Sorry if I post too frequently
Yep. They’re all whores.
So what’s up with Wells asking whether Russert ever agreed to help Libby tell a false story? On another thread earlier this morning, I speculated (wildly) that Russert would testify that he had not discussed Plame with Libby the week of July 8th, but had been asked by Libby thereafter to back up his “Timmeh told me” story.
Fitz did not elicit this, and one of the first questions out of the box when Wells got up was about whether Russert had agreed to help Libby tell a false story. Was he asking that to “clear” Libby (on the assumption that the jurors might be wondering about that, given Libby’s repeated statements that he learned about Plame “as if anew” from Russert), or is that somehow going to be part of discrediting Russert? Although I think it discredits Scooter more than it discredits Russert, if it had happened….
Can anyone in the courtroom or viewing the video feed tell us a little about Russert’s demeanor? Calm, annoyed, matter-of-fact, etcetera? (I’m guessing rather matter-of-fact and in control – he’s a TV guy).
Do you see any change in his demeanor between questioning by Wells as opposed to questioning by Fitz?
Do you notice any particular reactions by Timmeh to particular questions?
Just curious. I have a feeling that his appearance isn’t going to produce anything new – he’s just going to reiterate that he never told Scooter about Plame in the conversation Scooter claimed.
I like this bit….
“My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified.”
So much for freedom of the press – unless you think that the “freedom” part means always covering up for the government.
> W: He did not call as a source, though.
> T: Right.
> (Wells feels this is worth writing on a
> display.)
> 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.)
Anyone know where the heck he is going with this?
Cranky
Again: Hardball’s Chris Matthews works for MSNBC and reports to Dan Abrams. He does not report to Russert, who is Washington Bureau Chief of NBC News.
jayackroyd @ 61
Non-attribution is a way of keeping access, not reporting news. It is not about protecting at risk sources and whistleblowers but enabling the powerful. If Russert were a real journalist his approach would be the opposite of what he stated. It would be “You are on the record and if aren’t don’t talk to me.”
Christy Hardin Smith @ 40
PLEASE pay attention to what Christy has kindly asked of everyone.
I am a long time commenter here and have purposely refrained from commenting much, if at all, during the live blogging of the trial. In part to give new people visiting FDL a chance to ask questions. Please respect her request and show some restraint and discernment, we can gab all we want to once the trial has ended for the day. Thanks!
(Bless you Swopa
Handsome, you’re doing a fine job! Back to happily being patient for the next compelling update)Where’s that chat link?
SING OUT LOUISE!!!!
litigatormom @ 12
That’s typical questioning of witness stuff.
“W: Do you have a present recollection of not discussing Wilson’s wife, are you just reasoning backwards from the fact that you did not know about her until Novak’s column.”
Sounds like a question Scooter would give one of his “non-answers” to.
Reasoning backwards? A lot of that is what got us into war in the first place.
I like Tim’s response to the previous question,
W: But such an aggressive journalist, such a big story
T: What I said is what happened.
I will not refresh more frequently than 15 min.
I will not refresh more frequently than 15 min.
I will not refresh more frequently than 15 min.
[break]
I will not refresh more frequently than 15 min.
I will not refresh more frequently than 15 min.
I will not refresh more frequently than 15 min.
[break]
I will not refresh more frequently than 15 min.
I will not refresh more frequently than 15 min.
I will not refresh more frequently than 15 min.
> W: Wouldn’t have been natural for you to ask,
> though?
> T: Wasn’t a natural phone call. Never had one
> like that from such a high official,
> complaining and agitated.
> W: But such an aggressive journalist, such a
> big story
> T: What I said is what happened.
I am no fan of Russert, but the idea that a top-level media dude wouldn’t remember and report exactly on an event this odd is just silly. I have a hard time thinking that even Wells thinks the jury would go for this. Could he have a secretary or someone who claims to have overheard the conversation in his pocket? But that person would have had to be on the witness list.
Cranky
oddball @
35
Hie thee to Refresh Rehab, STAT!
(Or visit the Gabbly chat — see above at #18) :)
Now Wells is taking Timmeh to task for not taking Libby’s call as an opportunity to interview Libby. But Libby never said that Russert started interviewing him, or asking him questions — according to Libby’s grand jury testimony, Timmeh just made his comment about Plame out of the blue.
So I don’t see where Wells is headed. Playing the “is it possible you don’t recall the conversation” game isn’t going to work.
Good old Fitz.
Did Scooter tell you about Plame?
Russert: no.
Fitz: I’m done here.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 40
Christy… insofar as the noise to important content ratio is about 100 to 1 in the comments right now, why not just shut them down while Timmah testifies (if its not too difficult)?
I LOVE IT!
FITZ gets Timmy to deliver the dagger to the heart, and then walks away.
“My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified. “
What a joke. This is how the Washington Bureau Chief handles new gathering.
Have to give credit to the Horse for figuring out so early that Russert was a just a MW.
Ian @ 62
Well, I’m sure I’m missing something here, but it looks that way to me.
Of course, it’s Punkinhaid’s word against Scooter’s, but sounds like most of the other witnesses are backing this up. I think Russert would have been thoroughly vetted by NBC’s lawyers before getting on the stand. I have wondered why there has been no comment on NBC’s role in this or what kind of official statement they have made, if any.
LandOfTheFree @
66
Very low-kee, open, defferential. He is coming off as quite credible. Wells is circling around him, trying to get a wedge in, but Russet’s story is extremely simple and he doesn’t have to do much to stick to it.
Tim is a talking head not really interested in the real story.
He is a media personality of MTP and is just an NBC peacock shilling for the VP and administration.
Why would he want to bite off the hand that feeds him…very well I might add.
This server is very very busy. It’s only Wednesday!
raven @ 72
http://www.gabbly.com/firedoglake.com
Christy Hardin Smith @ 40
Maybe a stupid question… Do you mean refreshing page and refreshing comments? or can we refresh comments more freq than page … sorry if this has already been asked.
.
aka Scooter the WATB
So Wilson wouldn’t have made it to MTP if Russert hadn’t been on vacation? Is this a duct tape on the door moment?
“Why would he want to bite off the hand that feeds him…very well I might add.”
Because the only other choice is perjury…
Tim Russert, imho, is saying “I don’t do the job of a journalist. Sure, I play one on tv, but the only ‘news’ you’ll get from me are careful statements I’ve worked out with my powerful friends whose favor I’ve curried at receptions and dinners.”
Tim is not interested in the real story because he is a talking head not a real journalist.
As NBC’s shilling peacock for the VP and admin. why would he want to bite the hand that feeds him so well?
Libby blasted him and he took it in stride and told no one.
Cranky Observer @ 68
> W: He did not call as a source, though.
> T: Right.
> (Wells feels this is worth writing on a
> display.)
> 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.)
Anyone know where the heck he is going with this?
Hey Swopa and Jane : Is the jury rolling their by any chance knowing that wells is intentionally trying to confuse them w/ this B.S.?????
litigatormom @ 65
IMHO, Wells is trying to set up an argument that Libby’s mistaken attribution to T was innocent. Only an idiot would lie and say he got the info from some one who wouldn’t back up the story, the argument goes.
Wells: You had COS of VP on phone about story you didn’t know a whole lot about and didn’t ask probing detailed questions? What kind of journalist are you?
(rolls eyes)
Christy, I’m getting that same ominous feeling I get when the lights in my kitchen start to dim when the stove, microwave, refrigerator, dishwasher and fan all are going a the same time and just before I have to go to the basement and reset the fuse.
Make emergency blogging plans on DKos like Marcy did last week. I fear you are headed for a crash.
unlike your client pal.
Confession: I registered and logged into gabbly.com, but I could not figure out how to post my comment. The chat was scrolling so fast, and people saw I was logged on and asked me questions, but I couldn’t find the button that would enter my reply. If someone could point out what obvious thing I am missing, I would appreciate it. Your chatrooms, they frighten and confuse me — Sincerely, Unfrozen Cavewoman Lawyer
Back to topic: where the hell is Wells going? Is his big impeachment that Timmeh might have said initially to Fitz there were two phone calls? Because the second one is probably the one where Libby tried to suborn Timmeh’s perjury….
portia.vz @ 99
http://windcatpond.blogspot.com/
As a purely public service, I offer to do Russert’s job. I promise to do it no worse than he has and I (Here’s the altruistic part.) will do it for only half as much ($2.5 million). Please, hold the applause and expressions of gratitude.
Report first, then “verify”.
Christy
I second p.luk’s thot at 81
I know you hate to but, for the greater good, sure beats burning the toobz.
mainewebreport.com has more info and more space
FYI
Press The Meathead!
“Libby blasted him and he took it in stride and told no one.”
NOw I get your meaning.
I misread your original statement, Fitzmas, you were explaining why Russert might not push on the Wilson question at the time of the Libby call, not whether Russert is willing to testify NOW against Libby.
My bad…
dabpa @97:
This sounds strangely reminiscent of the rationalization of why no one found any WMD in Iraq: “why, of course they didn’t, Saddam hid them, the absence of WMD proves that there WAS WMD!”
Also, Libby could not name another reporter who told him that everyone in the press knew about Plame.
Ackkkkk! How did Timmeh answer?
Jane @85: thanks. Kinda what I’d guess. He wants to say as little as possible, make it clear, and get the hellouta there.
I have to disagree with some of the suggestions in this thread (and the groundwork Wells is trying to lay) that Timmeh is not much of a journalist if he doesn’t ask Scooter a lot of questions in this first phone call. First of all, Timmeh is NOT a field reporter – he’s more of an anchor, he’s a newsman figurehead whose biggest interest is to keep the channels between NBC and the WH/OVP open for NBCs real reporters to get information. Think of it from Timmeh’s perspective: he knows something big is going down. He gets back from vaycay and Scooter calls him bitching about Matthews (and Timmeh has no control over Matthews, which he knows Scooter is aware of… he has to know Scooter’s calling him because the OVP and MTP have a decent professional relationship. He lets Scooter vent, politely points him in the direction of someone who could have influence over Matthews – and therefore is somewhat appeasing. That means he can talk to Scooter again later to get more info.
When Scooter’s bitching, there’s no point to try to ask him for info – let him vent, and go back to him in a day or two when you’re prepared to ask some questions.
The quotes that Libby attributes to Russert sound more like the fast paced questions of Tweety
“Did you know . . .
“all of the reporters know about it . . .
Is there any record or comments of Libby talking to Tweety?
My guess would be post Novak Libby calls or talks with Tweety but he used that stuff from Tweety when he constructed his cover story.
Its just not the way Russert talks and is soo much the way Tweety talks.
but i guess we’ll never know
And there you have it. So much for the right-wing noise machine’s rant about how Fitz wasn’t thorough with Russert because he only talked to him for less than half an hour. As it turns out, it doesn’t take much time to tell the truth, especially when the truth is that Russert had no idea who Plame was, so there was no way he could’ve told Libby about her. Very nice way to tie up his case.
Press The Meathead!
Bravo!
-
W: But such an aggressive journalist, such a big story
BZZZZZZT!
Sorry, wrong answer. The answer we were looking for is “Limp, ineffective water-carrier for the current administration.”
Thanks for playing, Ted!
I am also on crutches but with a broken metatarsal. 5 weeks so far.
Strangely enough, I am Timmeh too…hmmm. Though not a TV gasbag.
Terre @
91
So true, Timmeh – every other time you’ve had calls from “high officials” in the Bush Administration it’s been all flowers and high fives – after which you’ve been issued the next round of talking points to spew.
Must have been quite a shock for you to hear one of them “complaining and agitated” after all you’ve done for them. Tsk tsk…
New thread, fokls.
Fresh thread for everyone. More Russert testimony.
So why did Matalin tell Scooter to call Russert, who couldn’t do anything about tweety (surely she knew that), instead of the producers of Hardball, who could have (and surely she had their phone numbers too)?
Russert makes it sound like he NEVER gets complaints from extremely important people, at least not on his office phone. Does that ring true?
I sense a disturbance in the server hamsters – as if millions of little hamster feet were . . . slipping.
-
Mandrake @
84
How come Libby’s memory is so great on Russert, and fuzzy wuzzy on contacts before and after?
lina @ 100
Snap! I picked up on that too and had to wonder what Timmeh knew that Scooter didn’t! Hah!
Blitzer following some Blackwater double-dealing, crime in the combat zone and some congressional investigation, ala Waxman.
Now Blitzer onto CIA leak trial, says they are now hearing audio tapes for the first time.
ccmask @ 17
When Cheney was on MTP a few months ago running his mouth about Iran’s “alleged” nuclear weapns program. Timmeh did not challenge him for one second. Timmeh did not ask the simple question “where is the verifiable evidence?’ Timmeh did not say “But VP Cheney Iaea’s Mr. El Baradei, Scott Ritter, Dr. David Kay and Col. Sam Gardiner all have stated that there is “no hard evidence” to prove these repeated claims. ( go view the briefing that Congressman put together with these folks on the panel. Timmeh did not say “but VP Cheney Flynt Leverett has also said that there is no verifiable evidence to support those claims”. (go check out Flynt Leverett’s “Dealing with Tehran” at the New America Foundation website)
No Russert asked Cheney “how can we stop them (Iran)? Deja Vu. So goes the lessons learned by the MSM from their failings in the run up to the invasion (expecially Russert, Matthews is asking some tough questions)
“How can we stop them” How tough can Russert get?