Good morning, my friends, and welcome back to the cross-examination that never ends … we're due to see more of NBC's Tim Russert being raked over the coals by Scooter Libby's attorney, Ted Wells. Yesterday afternoon's grilling raised several questions that Jane Hamsher, Arianna Huffington, and I kicked around after the court session. The main question from a media standpoint, even if some supposed media critics missed it (hat tip to commenter Thegris at Hullabaloo) is how Russert's loudly proclaimed First Amendment journalistic principles square with his unhesitating spilling of the beans to FBI agent John Eckenrode when he was first questioned about his phone call from Libby in July 2003.
And speak of the devil — as the judge and attorneys file into the courtroom, Judge Walton announces a problem with some of the jurors? There was an oversight in the redaction of newspapers, and the photo of Tim Russert and headline ("Tim Russert on the Uncomfortable Side of a Question") accompanying Howard Kurtz's article in the WaPo style section (which is linked above) was seen by some of the jurors. The jury is brought in, and no one 'fesses up to reading the article; a juror who saw the headline and photo immediately called it to marshals' attention. Mistrial averted, we hope.
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.
Russert takes his place on the stand. Wells tries to pick up where he left off, asking why if (as Tim said yesterday) that his chat with Libby was not something he considered confidential, why did he fight the subpoena and file an affidavit saying it was confidential? Did he make a false statement to a federal judge?
It's 9:44.
Wells notes that Russert refers to Libby as a "source" in the 2004 affidavit, but said yesterday that Libby had not called as a source (which Wells melodramatically wrote on the board for this purpose).
Russert explains that Libby was assumed to be a source until it became clear he was making a viewer complaint. Wells says, but he complained in the very first sentence! They go back and forth on this until Walton tells Wells to move on.
W: You said in the affidavit that you couldn't even confirm that you and a source had communicated at all. But you told the jury yesterdaj
T: In my mind there are two different situations. The FBI gave me information, I did not divulge information. When the FBI said how Libby had described the call, I felt compelled to correct information that was incorrect.
W: Did you think it was misleading to file an affidavit with Judge Hogan that did not mention those facts?
T: A subpoena was a much different situation, I would be asked to go before a jury and provide information, with open-ended questioning. I could not agree to that.
W: But Fitz agreed to limit questioning.
(Tim begs to differ. He pours some water as Wells puts a letter on the screen.)
W: (quotes the letter in which Fitz promises to limit questioning) He was limiting the questioning, right?
T: I was not familiar with exact letter, but as I read it now, I understand it.
W: You told me yesterday that you did understand the questioning was limited
T: I was not familiar with specific letter.
W: But you understood limitations. You knew that before you signed the affidavit, right?
T: Now that you read it to me, I understand it. I signed the affidavit because I believed that to be subpoenaed in open court would put me in a position to be asked about sources (cites chilling effect of having to answer any question)
Wells starts to repeat himself, Judge Walton notes that Russert said he didn't read letter and says to move on.
W: You understood questioning would be limited, and would
Tim doesn't answer. Walton says, answer yes or no.
T: I understood there would be some limitations.
W: Let's go back to the affidavit. You said you talked to Eckenrode, you described both sides of the conversation.
T: I did not volunteer infomratioin about what Libby had said.
W: (shows Russert testimony from yesterday — "in order to respond to what I had said, I has to say exactly what he had said:) Was that true when you siad it yesterday/
T: Yes, sir.
It's 10:01
T: Did you disclose to the FBI that you had a conversation with Libby?
T: I did not volunteer any information.
W: Did you disclose to the court in the affidavit that you had confirmed to the FBI the conversation with Libby?
T: I did not volunteer any information.
W: That's a different matter. (repeats the question — they go around this three or four times)
Walton: I think its the way you're asking the question that's confusing.
W: Does anything in the affidavit say you had a conversation with Eckenrode?
T: No.
W: Let's go to a different matter
W: Do you know that you and government worked out a deal without it being considered a waiver? (?? by Libby, I guess)
T: I don't know
W: You never heard that before? Do you know what was communicated between Fitz and judge regarding your testimony?
T: I have no recollection of that.
W: Are you aware that your lawyers worked out arrangement with govt. regarding scope of your testimony?
T: Yes.
W: (displays letter dated July 27, 2004) Have you ever seen this letter?
T: Don't believe so, could I read it?
W: (reads it) "This will confirm the understandings pursuant to which we intend to resolve the subpoena issued to your client, Tim Russert…" (etc.) You understand that an arrangement had been worked out where you would not have to appear before the grand jury?
T: I had not seen this letter. I knew I would be under oath.
W: Grand jury would not be able to assess your demeanor, ask you questions
T: Correct
W: And you would only be asked about Libby conversation.
T: I hoped so
W: And that was just a viewer complaint
T: As it turned out
W: So it wasn't a confidential source conversation
T: Yes but you never know what you might be asked, so thats why we fought so vigorously
W: (reads more of letter, saying testimony would be with lawyers in room) You know that in a grand jury, lawyers are not in the room?
T: Didn't know that
W: You are an attorney?
T: Non-practicing…. the most important thing is –
W: Please. I'm asking questions. (reads next paragraph, that while govt. wants Russert to keep testimony confidential, he had right to talk about it) You did go on TV afterward and discuss your recollection, right?
T: Yes.
W: At no time in these appearances did you talk about your interview with the FBI, did you?
T: That was a confidential conversation.
W: Which conversation?
T: The one you mentioned.
W: Oh, with Eckenrode?
T: Yes.
W: That was confidential?
T: He asked for it to be.
W: So you never talked about it, because he asked to keep it confidential?
T: And because he was transmitting information to me.
W: But you said both sides of conversation were discussed.
T: I said that what he told me Libby had said was incorrect.
W: (asks to explain)
T: He said Libby had called about
W: And all the rest about who to call about Hardball was discussed
T: I didn't discuss it, I confirmed it.
It's 10:17.
W: There's nothing in letter about agreement not to use your disclosures to the FBI as an argument that you had already waived your confidentiality, correct?
Fitz objects. Sidebar. Walton sustains the objection.
W: (puts up a letter dated June 2, 2004, the first letter from Fitz to Russert's lawyer) Is there any reference in this letter to that it would not view your disclosures to the FBI as a waiver of confidentiality (Ahh, that's what the "waiver" thing up above was about.)
T: (asks to read letter) No, sir.
W: When you were deposed, the questions were limited to Libby conversation on July 10, right?
T: I was asked about any conversation iwth my colleagues or anyone else about Valerie Plame.
W: Deposition was about 22 minutes, right?
T: About that, yes.
W: You were asked, "At that time, did you have any understanding that Wilson's wife worked at CIA?" Just one question, right?
T:
W: you were not asked specifically about Dav
T: I believe I referred to my colleagues in one of m
W: Were you asked any specific questions on what information D Gregory might have had?
T: Don't think his name came up
W: Or what information Andrea Mitchell migth have had?
T: Not her specific name, no.
W: In terms of NBC news reporting of Wilson — anumber of reporters on that story, right? Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory among them, right?
T: Yes.
W: Mitchell was with Wilson on MTP on July 6, right?
T: Yes.
W: During the week of July 6, Mitchell was on TV and reporting on Wilson, rigth?
T: Yes.
W: And Gregory was in Africa with President Bush, right?
T: Right.
W: No question in deposition about Gregory talking to Ari Fleischer
Objection. Sustained — hearsay.
W: Were you asked any question –
Walton: He's already said.
W: You said if you had known about Wilson's wife, you would have called colleagues together, right, and discussed what to do, right?
T: Right.
W: Same thing if Andrea Mitchell had information, right?
Objection. Sustained.
W: Was it the expected practice that if a key reporter got important information, they would report it to the group?
T; Yes.
W: And Gregory and Mitchell were key reporters?
T: Yes, and they never came forward.
W: Were you aware that Mitchell refused to be interviewed –
Objection. Sustained.
W: Right after Libby was indicted, do you remember having a roundtable discussion on TV?
Objection. Sidebar.
W: Do you remember roundtable disussion on Libby indictment?
T: Probably two of those — on MTP, and on CNBC
W: And on CNBC, roundtable was you, Gregory, Mitchell, and Pete Williams. Correct?
T: Yes.
It's 10:34.
W: You have never divulged on TV your conversation with Eckenrode, right?
T: Was a confidential conversation I did not report on.
W: Do you recall a statement by NBC News that NBC had done its best not to hide anything about its involvement or Tim Russert's involvement in leak investigation?
T: Yes.
Objection. Sidebar (after Fitz shrugs, a little frustrated, and says, "May be approach?"). Sustained.
It's 10:43. New thread coming up.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Swopa! Fitz!
FITZMAS!
TEAM FDL!!
Swopa! You go Boy!
oh phooey. can’t we at least call it a tie?
Hi ccmask. congrats, I guess.
Sun’s shining here.
Flex those magic fingers, Swopa.
Weeee’re READY TO READ! ;->
but, hey, i can’t find that emoticon in wiki!?! *g*
Re direct.
Good morning. Just checking to see if I can post on the web before it gets really busy. Anyway, better to read.
New visitors to FDL liveblog of Libby Trial, please read
The liveblogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Swopa is updating only every 20 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 short 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. Ignore the trolls.
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 Swopa makes his 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 at the bottom of the post. That’s what makes this all possible.
Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.
Thanx
morning adie…
My comment appears so it worked. And many, many thanks to RBG and Christy and many others who worked so hard to get the site up and running. And of course to Marcy for her comments which add texture to Swopa’s heroic typing.
And remember, its better to read and comment sparingly.
morning cc
Wells makes a good point. Russert says he didn’t want to appear before the grand jury because he didn’t want Fitzgerald to go on a fishing expedition, but Russert is admitting that he knew (because he signed an afidavit) that Fitzgerald had agreed to limit his questioning to the July 10, 2003 conversation. Russert says it would have a “chilling effect” on his ability to report if his sources think he would compromise them in such a fashion, but Fitzgerald admitted he did not want to ask about any of Russert’s sources.
Rusert is coming off very badly right now.
Hey – are we “winning”? Will Fitz get a conviction?
I don’t see how making a fool out of Russert (actually not that hard I guess) helps Libby because it is obvious, to me at least, that russert was, indeed, trying to protect Libby and Cheney by not testifying. Russert is a tool, he just wanted to try to not overtly act like one. hahah
That’s also how Swopa makes his 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.) … If she can wait 15 minutes …
LOL twolf1, need a wee bit o tweakin’ there.
Now Russert is saying he didn’t tell Eckenrode everything that Libby said, but Wells puts up testimony from yesterday where Russert admits he did tell Eckenrode everything.
Good morning. :)
Nothing like a patriotic contest: When will Dick Cheney resign – month/day/year?
I’m listenig to NPR and the Diane Rehm show is coming up – her show today is all about the Libby trial with guests Isikoff, Dickerson and York.
And, thank you FDL for everything!
From AP:
Wow, I don’t like Russert one bit, but for the sake of the trial I don’t want to see him get destroyed like this. But I do like that he is squirming. Oh God, I am conflicted.
Actually, Russert is doing a bit better today. He’s admitting the paradox and agreeing that he was inconsistent. That’s better than yesterday.
This is Wells only real shot at getting Libby off – a weak shot because no matter how bad he makes Russert look, Russert was not Libby’s source.
Here’s Timmeh!
Man oh man I hate Russert more than ever. As Jane rightly points out, Russert was being a loyal tool in fighting the subpoena and nothing more, which is a fact I hope will not be lost on the jury (but keep in mind that they are getting only the slice of the whole pie served up at trial). If I were Fitz, I would actually consider impeaching my own witness by making it clear (since it’s all out there now) that Russert was simply trying to protect Libby to preserve his good relations with his patrons, and then quickly make the point that as ugly as that is, it in no way impinges on the credibility of his account of the phone call. to the contrary, it makes it extra-reliable because it then becomes an admission against interest.
What seems to me clearly happened was this: It appears that at the time of the FBI interview, he – like Cheney & Co. – must have thought the whole case was no big whoop (either because Ashcroft would ensure that it’s a bag job or otherwise). But when — and only when — he (and his employer) realized that this was a serious prosecution (i.e., only after the case was wrested from Ashcroft and a real prosecutor starting doing his job properly) and that testifying to what he told the FBI would put Cheney’s Cheney in legal jeopardy, the sonofoabitch hid behind the First Amendment claiming, seemingly, that any conversation – no matter how mundane – with someone who is sometimes a source is privileged, even though his account is that the call had nothing to do with a reporter-source relationship but rather with the King’s man expressing displeasure with the herald. The boom really needs to be lowered on Russert. I know Arianna’s on the case, but this should be a major, multilateral effort.
will someone please announce the devestation caused the wilson’s because of this leak? valarie had to quit her job. also mary matalin is saying valarie wasn’t covert. i think if you read the polotics of truth by joe wilson and check its accuracy, they’ll put these talking heads to shame.
Morning all, Big Tim not looking too swell right now, chock full of contradictions
“The newsman was not on trial, ” says Mr. Sherri Annis. But of course he was — and is. And so are you Sherri darling.
From the comedians at freeperville – on Patrick Fitzgerald:
Who says wingers aren’t funny?
blue e — jeepers, Isikoff, Dickerson and York on the Libby trial? I trust only one of them to do a reasonable job; the others are WATB’s.
And what’s with York, York, York? Is he the Heritage Foundation’s new posterboy for right-wing propaganda on this particular matter or what?
Or is he the only guy in his industry without enough to do that he’s got the time to be interviewed about this case, notes in hand?
Sebastian @ 23
Bingo.
It seems plausible to me that Russert spoke freely with the FBI agent because he had nothing to hide, but was then admonished and ordered to sign the affidavit by company lawyers because they were worried about setting a precedent. It seems to me the lawyers were wrong because this was really not a situation involving talking to a source – as Russert started out saying. In corporate settings, people do get ordered to do things by the lawyers. Now Russert is stuck dealing with the inconsistency.
Morning Jane!
Hope you got a good sleep last night. You looked so pretty, AND smart(!) in the lil’ video last night. All that in one package. Oughtta be a law. *g*
Yer lil’ quip here:
“Rus[s]ert is coming off very badly right now.”
Reminds me of a new wh rule I suggested yestidie, eh?
Gonna go hush & lurk like a good gurl now.
Have a great day! ;->
jane hamsher @
12
It would have a chilling effect on his reputation not to put up a public fighting posture.
But the fate of his reputation was already set.
Greg @ 20
LOL – That put a smile on my face. :o) I hope it stays through the rest of the day.
terry @ 24
firtz will undo any damage caused by wells on redirect
From Fitzgerald’s letter limiting Russert’s testimony:
Russert is now saying that he never reported on the Eckenrode conversation because it was a “confidential conversation.”
????
Jane, his professional reputation is cooked, over, but I don’t think it’s enough to impeach his critical Scooter testimony. Still, it only takes one juror. But his Scooter testimony about his conversation was pretty solid and came across as credible.
I really don’t want to defend Russert but it was mentioned yesterday that it may be the standard policy of NBC lawyers to fight any subpoena against one of their journalists. Now those lawyers should have been aware that Russert already spilled the beans to the FBI but this is not the first time that lawyers have scorched earth that is already in flames.
I can actually see that Eckenrode might ask Russert not to report on the conversation so as not to tip Libby off at that point, but once Libby was indicted all bets were off.
HOPE I AM NOT REPEATING ANYTHING. BUT RIGHT NOW THEY ARE DISCUSSING THE LIBBY TRIAL ON THE DIANE REHMS SHOW. CONTACT THEM WITH QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW….DRSHOW@WAMU.ORG 1-800-433-8850
Byron York is one of the guest
Sebastian @ 23
Sounds dead right to me.
Can’t he just say – I reacted to it my way, and the army of lawyers at NBC re-worked my reaction.
In an article I read yesterday (sorry, can’t find link) there was the statement that MTP generates $50M per year in profits for the NBC division of GE. With that amount of profit on the line, I can understand how NBC’s lawyers would want to be protecting anything that would compromise MTP’s continued role as a platform for government officials. They would have viewed Russert’s initial contact with the FBI to have been a mistake (he could have declined to speak entirely) which would have to be rectified at the Grand Jury subpoena level.
Jane at 36 — My guess is that Eckenrode did the standard “ongoing investigation, don’t talk to anyone about the questions we’ve asked you here today” blah blah, to keep Russert and any other folks who are interviewed from blabbing details that might tip off the target (or targets) of the investigation. It’s not an enforceable prohibition for anyone interviewed or who testifies before the G/J (see the Cooper article in Time after his G/J testimony as an example), but they always ask that you keep it “confidential” for ongoing investigative purposes if, indeed, it is ongoing. My guess is that Russert found it convenient to go along with this request.
jane hamsher @
36
Crap, even when I’m live-blogging, I get scooped. :-(
i know, keep comments to a minimum, but wanted people to know about program on npr-fantastic so far
epu’d from end of last thread:
diane rehm show doing an hour on libby trial and inner workings of washington…….go get ‘em diane……..guests are john dickerson, michael isikoff, and BYRON YORK…………WHERE’S MARCY i wanna know……am sending them an email……..
she is detail oriented in her questions and doesn’t back down when someone gives a non-answer, i suggest people listen to the show later.
she spoke in my little college town and she was fantastic, lotsa meat in her talk…….and took a lot of tough questions, and answered them brilliantly……..
go fdl
Mmmm, I love the smell of their desperation in the morning.
jane hamsher @ 40
Then why isn’t Timmeh mentioning that fact?
I like having the color commentary that Jane and Pach are providing along with the play-by-play from Swopa.
More please.
lina @ 42
If I were Fitz on the redirect, I’d ask, did you write the briefs to quash the subpoena. I’d just get him to say the NBC lawyers were handling it and advised him that this was the best course of action. No one expected him to represent himself in the matter–all actions were on the advice of counsel, advice which was not available to him when Eckenrode called.
Once again, Timmeh is being manipulated with *shame* by the shameless defense.
The poor guy gets overwhelmed when the *implication* is that he did something wrong.
Will he begin to doubt himself?
Pachacutec @ 37
You know, I don’t think so. The way our society is going, Russert is going to go back on his show after this trial is over, things will be ackward for a while, and then everyone will forget what happened. After a while, it will be like all of this “unpleasantness” never happened and everyone will go back to preening themselves, telling themselves how “on top” they are.
My prediction.
Pectopah @ 48
why should he offer any information not solicited by the court?
From AP:
blue e @ 18
Dickerson shouldn’t be on there. Where’s Marcy today? She should be on there. Maybe she can only take being around Byron so much, though…
I live near Tim. To celebrate his testimony today and overall journalistic integrity maybe I should roll his house tonight and shower it with eggs and kisses.
Strongly disagree with the idea of doing anything to Russert’s home.
Let people have their privacy.
egregious @ 57
so the burning bag of dog poop is not a good idea either?
j/k – sheesh
Boy it would be great if C&L could unearth that round table discussion of the Libby situation with Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory and nobody said shit about their involvement in the case. What a circle jerk.
Yeah, that’s seriously stupid. Especially talking about it on a high-profile day like this when everybody is reading FDL and could easily come away with the impression that this is all about harassingRuss.
Wells: “And that was just a viewer complaint.”
Timmeh: “As it turned out.”
Since when is a call from the VP’s henchman trying to shut down media criticism by going to the higher-ups “Just a viewer complaint???”
–
Howard Fineman was on Tweety’s show last night, along with Isikoff and David Shuster. And since Fineman knows nothing about the case (he thinks there was no underlying crime), the only reason I can come up with for his being there was to pedal fast for Russert.
He went on and on about what a great, ethical, highly respected journalist Russert is – paragon of virtue, blah blah blah (transcript not up yet).
Fineman’s spinning about this made me think that NBC is worried about Russert’s reputation right now.
THE COURTROOM BLOGGER COULD SEND A QUESTION FROM THE COURTROOM
jane hamsher @ 59
This is why we come to blogs like firedoglake.
Jane can you send in a question to the Rehms show drshow@wamu.org
Ari Schapiro handling part of NPR’s coverage of the trial – like the website collection of GJ transcripts, for instance. They gave Nina a very big segment this morning on ME, so she can only do so much. But Schapiro does put a different spin on the facts – not that I’m accusing Nina of spinning.
I’m more concerned that NPR is leaving out sensible discussion of the trial outside Totenberg’s sphere. Have they featured any of the fdl experts in any segment or program not directly connected to Nina?
Go FDL and Godspeed.
Here’s an invitation. When the server load gets high, as it DEFINITELY is 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 65 folx in there at one point yesterday. 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…
Hint: Use two browser windows. Put the above URL in one, and the real FDL (this one) in the other. Position the windows where you can see both the chat about FDL and the real FDL. Refresh only the latter.
Betty @ 30
I agree with this. Even though the FBI agent was asking TR whether he could affirm Libby’s account of a conversation, TR would not have known, at the time, that his disclaimer that they had talked about Plame would result in Libby being a target of a perjury conviction. He might have even thought, at the time, that by saying he’d never discussed Plame with Libby, he was getting Libby off the hook. But when it became clear that his testimony was going to impeach Libby and possibly subject him to perjury or obstruction charges, he and the network got cold feet.
Although this line of questioning is embarrassing for Timmeh, I don’t see how it negates the basic point of his testimony: he did not disclose Plame’s identity to Libby. They have done nothing to show that Russert actually knew about Plame before the Libby call, and unless they call David Gregory or Andrea Mitchell to say that they told Russert about it beforehand, they won’t be able to prove it. Arguing it before the jury, if they can’t get Gregory or Mitchell to say that, won’t do any good — speculative possibilities don’t create reasonable doubt.
Zeppo @
52
You know, I don’t think so. The way our society is going, Russert is going to go back on his show after this trial is over, things will be ackward for a while, and then everyone will forget what happened. After a while, it will be like all of this “unpleasantness” never happened and everyone will go back to preening themselves, telling themselves how “on top” they are.
My prediction.
Oh yeah, NBC will march out every prominent talking head they own to say “.. Tim Russert was a model citizen during the Libby trial and everyone should look up to him for serving his country well..yada, yada..” Then they will start pitching the need for a showdown w/ Iran because the ‘Dickster’says were all doomed if we don’t…business as usual. The American public does have a short attn span for sure (but we don’t).
Are we watching the end of Tim Russert’s career? What a bind!
Please, let’s stop with talking about doing things to people like egging their houses or “pulling limb from limb”. Even if you only mean this metaphorically, its in bad taste, and reflects very poorly on this site. Maybe the moderators can remove these comments.
FDL is starting to get some respect because of the excellent work of the bloggers. Don’t ruin it with stupic comments!
Been speculating all night:
…was Libby’s “complaint call” really just a part of the plan, to set up a conversation with Russert that included Niger-Wilson conversation, then circulate the plame name to a few other other journalists, and at the end of the day (literally) claim the info started with Russert?
Brilliant in its conception, efficient in its execution, but it just didn’t fly.
The Cheney gang’s hubris blinded them to the fact that journalists aren’t going to protect a source for very long, when the source used them to distribute lies that lead to war.
Something about the Russert call from Libby reeks of gamesmanship, more like a move on the chessboard than an angry political executive protecting his “good name.”
Lest people miss this I’m repeating
from dmac at 46
“diane rehm show doing an hour on libby trial and inner workings of washington…….go get ‘em diane……..guests are john dickerson, michael isikoff, and BYRON YORK…………WHERE’S MARCY i wanna know”
Rehm is taking calls AND e-mails RIGHT NOW on NPR.
Hey Gang! People WAY more articulate than I: Make her phones light up, PLEASE!
I don’t have link, but google Diane Rehm should yield info. GO FDL!
#68 litigator Mom–I agree with this. Tim Russert’s testimony is not negated by the fact that he let NBC’s corporate lawyers do their lawyer dance. His reputation as a journalist may be undermined by the fact that he is a corporate tool. But anyone with half a brain already knew that.
None of this cross-examination matters much. I suppose the implication is that because there were some inconsistencies of wording in the affidavit supporting the motion to quash the subpoena, and because Russert, like everyone, has a memory that is not flawless, that he might be mistaken or lying in his testimony that he didn’t tell Scooter about Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity. But his statements were so clear, direct and logical — including the detail that he didn’t know her identity then and would have written about it if he did, and was startled to read about it in Novak’s column — that I doubt that any jurors will be swayed by this. Any time you have a direct of 12 minutes and a cross of 4 hours, the side presenting the witness is probably in better shape.
All roads lead to Andrea for Wells- C & L
Isn’t this questioning the heart of the problem with reporters confidentiality agreements with their sources: if the source lies about the discussion, doesn’t that nullify any confidence?
Russert is a wimp, but if and FBI agent calls you up and essentially accuses you of giving out certain information, I’m not sure why you can’t respond. Much different than being before a GJ.
plunger at 72 — Please stop spamming that all ove the comments. It’s appeared more than once this morning, and you are eating up bandwidth by repeating it. We are trying to keep the liveblogging moving along — long comments drag the server and none of us wants to see it crash during Russert’s testimony. Thanks.
If we keep seeing long comments that are tangentialy related to the liveblogging, we’re going to have to start redacting them. Just a heads up for everyone — I am not kidding.
jane hamsher @ 36
The rules concerning grand jury secrecy do not apply to the witnesses. In other words, the government lawyers and the grand jurors cannot publicly disclose testimony before the grand jury, but grand jury witnesses may publicly disclose their own testimony. So the letter simply means that TR could disclose his deposition testimony to the same extent that he would have been permitted to disclose his own grand jury testimony.
Just because he COULD disclose it, however, does not mean he was obligated to do so. And it doesn’t affect the confidentiality of prior interviews with the FBI. I wonder if Fitz brought the FBI interview to the court’s attention when he was opposing the motion to quash the subpoena.
This is also a good time to remind folks that you get ONE nickname on this site. Anyone sockpuppeting in order to get multiple comments in on the same topic will be banned. I hope that’s clear enough.
Russert = Rather?
The Hack and the Hero, sounds like a TV sitcom…
New thread.
To all you wonderful people who have been reporting this on an up-close-and-personal basis, once Irving is dealt with what wil Fitz’s next move be?
Here’s an assignment for Firepups, in re: Diane Rehm Show –
Contact Diane and ask why Michael Isikoff, known to many of us here in grassroots as Rove’s cat’s paw, has time on her program, and why not Marcy Wheeler, an independent citizen with a published book on the facts that underpin the Libby trial?
;-)
p.s. Sorry, Christy, want to get a plug in for Marcy and her book. Isikoff is to Rove what Russert is to Cheney.
CityGirl @ 61
I’m sure he answers all his viewer complaints personally.
Got it Christy… Thank you for your efforts here.
For anyone interested in my take in terms of the ENTIRE conspiracy in context:
http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com/
blue e @
18
Sheesh, could someone please get to these folks — and Diane Rehm should be quite willing — and ask that they put some REAL journalists with REAL insight on their shows, instead of the same old, same old?
new thread
in re: Russert talking to the FBI
maybe Russert didn’t realize his conversation with the FBI agent was on the record
Just e-mailed this question to Diane:
Thanks for taking e-mails for the Libby segment this morning. My question for the panel is:
“Was Libby’s Obstruction (”I heard Valerie Plame’s name and occupation from the Media) designed to ‘foil’ an IIPA investigation – which requires that the Classified Identity be leaked from a Government Source, but wouldn’t apply to information coming from the Press?”
jane hamsher @
59
Would this be the link you need? Le Cirque de Jerk
plunger @ 85
Excellent info, Plunger…
… You should let everyone know right here who Mr. Chertoff’s grandfather is (was) — it might stun some visitors here.
S.O.S. in MA @ 66
I’m running the Gabbly Chat docked but..It requires a Password..So how do I register?
Fitzmas @
56
PLEASE take pictures!!!
bloody marvelous!! the “reptilian” is angry
and sees his power slipping away as each day passes…My oh my, these men have no soul(s)…
better watch that ticker there ricardo…
Teehee, from a defense lawyer standpoint, it’s great to see the pumpkin squirming.
so as not to clutter up a current thread, I’ll drop this in here:
portia.vz @
96
did she say “I-ANAL“? ‘cuz, you know, that’s kind of how she made her name….
(back to lurking)
Pectopah @ 48
This is a great point, but it isn’t one that Wells will ask, because it would indicate that the investigation was already on Libby at this point (which doesn’t really highlight his innocence to the jury). Fitz isn’t going to mention it, because it could make Timmeh appear to be behaving as he does because he has some motive against Libby. So you may not hear it in court, but it would a great question for a journalist to ask Eckenrode (not that they would probably get a straight answer).