I can easily see her backing away from the statement to protect herself and her company despite it having been either true or not true.

Who can ya trust these days?

Hey cinnamonape you and I see it the same way, you posted what I was thinking/typing moments before I posted.

Your narrative was a lot clearer though!

e.c. @ 31

wells brought up something earlier that i was wondering about, but to me it raises more questions about libby (and a conspiracy), so i’m not sure why he put it in the jury’s mind. he was trying to get tim to say that if he or gregory or mittchel had “hot news” they would have shared it with the others. since ari testified that he told david gregory about valerie in africa, did scoots just assume that david had blabbed to everyone at nbc and that’s why scoots figured he could finger tim russert as his “source”? i know that there is a missing link in there – how did libby know who ari told – but since i don’t think anyone has told the whole story so far i’m willing to put on my tinfoil hat and assume that maybe that was a conversation that both have chosen to forget. i know that scooter assumend that none of the reporters would testify willingly, but blaming tim russert only makes sense if he was reasonably certain that tim would at the very least say that he himself had gotten the info from other reporters.

Honestly, I think this is the best point I’ve seen made yet.

Yes…Libby was hoping that Russert would have been an end party to the Daisy-Chain he created by telling ARI. And if ARI > Dickerson/Gregory/Lipper> Russert worked…then he could assert that Russert told HIM that Plame was a CIA operative in WMD!

In fact, maybe he contrived the “aggressive call” to Russert in the HOPE that Russert would ask him about the information about “Wilson’s wife”. So, he makes this really unusual “freak out” call about ‘Hardball’ (making sure that Russert would really, really remember it…whining, at Russerts HOME, etc.). Then he waits and waits for Russert to “ask”…but no “alibi” emerges. Russert hasn’t heard! But he then thinks later that maybe Russert did know, and simply forgot to ask, or perhaps would learn later in the day, and thus might not recall that he said anything about it. In addition, Libby, a lawyer, might have been hoping that Russert would simply refuse to testify and thus Libby’s assertion that he heard from Russert would never be challengeable. In fact, the “Daisy Chain” wouldn’t have been discovered.

But perhaps this is a bit to Machiavellian. Maybe the only reason he targetted Russert was that he confabulated his hope that Russert would have raised “Wilson’s wife” in that discussion with the reality.

Oh happy day. Wells is bringing up Andrea Mitchell and Russert on Imus. I’m so glad this did not die.

No wonder why the press hates Fitzgerald. He’s going to take down not just BushCo, but a key chunk of the GOP/Media Complex.

A few questions for the attorneys or anyone who can answer these questions.

I have followed the Plamegate issue relatively closely. But I am not ashamed to say that I do not understand our legal system.

If Libby leaked…why are the other “alleged” leakers getting off? Rove, Wolfowitz, Fleisher, Armitage etc. If Fitzgerald flips the other leakers why do they get off scott free? Will the other leakers be able to serve in future administrations?

Part of the problem is that Prosecutors at this level really don’t want to have losing prosecutions. The laws are demanding in that they often require a showing of INTENT and KNOWLEDGE rather than negligence. Armitage says that his leak was “an accident”, so did Rove; Fleisher said that he was unaware of the classified nature of his “leak” (and perhaps Fitz doesn’t actually have a witness who can testify that he DID leak ~ i.e. make a deal of immunity to get at HIS source).

In addition, many prosecutions start with the “little guys”…and builds up to those that were the Giapettos of the “marionettes”. Fitz has done this with his organized crime and government corruption cases, business embezzlement and terrorist prosecutions. Often he does have a list of “unindicted co-conspirators” or sealed indictments in the wings just in case he can eventually build a case for getting the higher ups or even those at lower levels (those you have cited) if they have lied under limited immunity deals.

Remember that much of the delays in bringing this case to trial was due to A) the legal wrangling by members of the “Fifth Estate” to avoid testifying; b) requests for delays and hearings on evidence by the Defense. Fitz was likely ready to take this to trial back in December 2004 if he hadn’t run into these two roadblocks.

Put yourself in russert’s shoes – In a one on one voluntary session with the FBI – you can not lie, but can choose not to answer or choose not to cooperate at all at any time. In a Grand Jury hearing – you have no such choices.

And as a “journalist” (using the term charatibly) there are things you can find out based on the questions asked – I can see the attraction

I agree and go a step futher. When the FBI interviews TR, the first thing the agent wants to do is peak TR’s interest, get him involved. What sparks TR’s interest is that Libby is trying to use him as a scapegoat. Libby is betting that TR won’t talk to the FBI, that TR and NBC will claim journalist’s privilege/confidential source to protect TR’s conversation with Libby. So long as TR doesn’t talk, Libby’s alibi is safe. So at this point, the FBI agent is concerned primarily about one thing and one thing only: Did TR tell Libby about Wilson’s wife? And TR can confirm or deny that without revealing anything that Libby said to him. And as I am sure the agent explained to TR in great detail, Libby has already disclosed to the FBI the fact of his phone conversation with TR as well as the contents. In other words, TR no longer has any reason to claim privilege as to whether Libby ever called him. So once TR sees he’s been set up by Libby, and once the FBI agent gives TR the opportunity to protect Libby’s side of the conversation by TR’s providing to the agent only what TR said to Libby, well that was just too good an opportunity to pass up. Remember that Libby had signed a confidentiality waiver to allow those he spoke to in the press to talk to the FBI. Russert had the green light. At the time of TR’s FBI interview the choice came down to aiding and abetting Libby’s effort to mislead the FBI, refusing to answer any FBI questions (tantamount to aiding and abetting) or telling the truth. The FBI made it easy for Russert to tell the truth; so he did.

The implication to me is that the Defense feels that Russert was compelled to keep his conversation with Libby secret. That would suggest that Libby expected this (even though he felt that he had no compunction about revealing what Russert supposedly said to HIM0.

Now the jury might just think that this was the “perfect way” for Libby to “attribute” his source to be a REPORTER and that the reporter would never testify that such was false.

Wells dwelling upon this indicates that he and Libby may have, in fact, discussed this and somehow they have confabulated Libby’s strategy to conceal with a DEFENSE to the crime!

But even under the widest interpretations of a “reporter-source” confidentiality agreement there is NOTHING which would prevent a journalist from DEFENDING themselves against spurious accusations made by a “source”.

If an accused terrorist said that it was, in fact, a journalist who told him that the journalist himself was “the bomber” and that he was with the journalist at the time of the bombing…would that journalist NOT have the right to mount a defense of such a charge?

Just as lawyers have the REQUIREMENT to testify against a client who attempts to involve the lawyer in a criminal act (the attorney-client Fraud Exception), a journalist who is brought into involvement in a case (rather than simply REPORTING upon it…conveying information) is under no obligation to be USED by that “source”.

Russert had no obligation to “protect” Libby once Libby attempted to use Russert (in fact, FRAME RUSSERT and make him THE PATSY). Libby’s effort to do this is in fact one more case of his venial nature…that he would be willing to point fingers at an innocent person who might cover for him, in order to escape prosecution.

All the rest is “smoke and mirrors” on the part of Wells…and may, as I suggested, actually backfire on the part of Libby.

(BTW Wasn’t Eckenrode more of a protectable “source” than Libby…who was just a whining shrew in his conversation?)

filleting of Tim Russert…

The Timster isnt doing so bad. Me thinks you give too much credit to Team LeakerAgentOuter.