Q. Since, since July 14th when the Novak column
appeared, have you spoken to Tim Russert about the
uranium/Niger issue?
A. I — no, I think not.
Q. Have you spoken to him about the leak investigation?
A. Not directly, but I did speak to him once.
Q. Okay. And, and what do you mean by not directly?
A. I mean, I spoke to him but not — I didn’t talk to
him about the content of the investigation. I did call him at
one point to ask if he would be willing to talk to my lawyer.
Q. Okay. And did you talk to him about — besides
asking him if he would be willing to your lawyer, did you talk
about the substance of the leak investigation?
A. No.
Q. Did you indicate whether or not you thought you were
involved in the leak?
A. Whether I thought I was involved in the leak?
Q. Right, to Mr. Russert.
A. No.
Q. And did you ask him what his position would be about
whether he would testify or not if asked?
A. No.
Q. And do you know the time when you reached out to
talk to Mr. Russert?
A. A few weeks back.
Q. Okay. A few weeks back being in March of 2004 or –
A. February, March, somewhere in there.
Q. And have you spoken to Mr. Russert since?
A. No.

A question – what do we suppose Russert said when asked about this vile attempt at witness-tampering?

Or dare we infer by the absence of any charges or discussion that Russert did not see it as tampering?

FWIW – you know I am going to check the liveblog to see if Russert was asked about this in court. Forewarned…

You have this remarkable habit of believing your absence of evidence is stronger than common sense.

I am declaring a Self Awareness Moment before I read any further.

I’m just suggesting there are very SIMPLE explanations that you like to overlook in the face of your overwhelming lack of evidence.

Sorry, one last Self Awareness Moment and I will press on. As the conversation unfolds, I suspect we will see that I am not alone in leaping from small hills of fact across great chasms of, well, emptiness.

Meanwhile, if you can stray back to the actual point for a moment – I don’t see any attempt by you to explain why Fitzgerald thought it was worth flagging Dickerson but not Gregory in his discovery letter to the defense. Your earlier guess, as I understood it, was that the prosecution investigated Gregory’s story (but not Dickerson’s) in a way that produced no paper trail or discoverable info. Hard to see how they could do that and stay within the rules.

My guess was that Fitzgerald chose to leave it out to protect Gregory and Russert. Which idea is simpler?

The main point is, the defense chose not to call Andrea Mitchell, even though they were sure she got a leak.

You should check the live-blogging – the opportunity to call her was quite restricted (unless the reporting is wrong.)

And that relates to Fitzgerald’s dubious affidavits and discovery how?

Well, Ari’s leaks couldn’t qualify him for IIPA, since Libby was so sloppy in the way he informed him of the matter.

Again, I exhort you to follow the trial on the fabulous FDL liveblog – Ari also learned about Ms. Plame from Dan Bartlett while paging through a classified CIA memo describing the Wislon trip.

Since the CIA memo in question is an attachment to the INR memo (also marked Top Secret), one might surmise that Ari saw the INR memo as well, but who can tell – either way, he was surrounded by classified info when he learned it from Bartlett – worth investigating?

On the other hand, Libby COULD have been found guilty of IIPA, depending on what he said to Judy. You keep whining about underlying crime. Ari couldn’t have been guilty of IIPA, LIbby could have. SImple difference.

Having been reminded of the Ari’s Bartlett chat, do you want to stand by that?

You keep babblng on and on about how suspicious Russert’s fight against testifying is, which is the basis (I might call it “evidence” if I were more generous) for your allegation that Fitz filed a false affadavit.

Whining, babbling – folks can judge for themselves who is doing what, I suppose; for myself, I figure that ad homninems are a sign of a collapsing argument.

Anyway, since my point may have not been made sufficiently clear, my allegation is that *RUSSERT* filed a false affidavit, with Fitzgerald as a complicit bystander. The specific phrase I question is in paragraph six, where Russert tells the judge that he cannot even confirm to the government that he has spoken to the government official in question – that seems like a lie of omission, since he had already confirmed that to the FBI.

SO, do you think that statement of Russert’s was true, or false? Ethical or not?

And Fitzgerald said nothing. Fitzgerald also made a point of *not* mentioning Russert’s FBI testimony in his own filing. Why? Should an officer of the court countenance a false filing with a judge?

My theory – he was coddling Russert, his star witness. Seems simple. Your view?

Libby contacted Russert in the same manner as he did Judy, at an equivalent time. It is not unreasonable to assume he acted in teh same way–that is, telling Russert he shouldn’t testify if he couldnt’ corroborate Libby’s story.

I refer to your opening comment about absence of evidence not being a bar to speculation. Did Libby send Russert a poem about Aspens, too?

Well. Your delightful flight of fancy notwithstanding, is it your argument that, since Libby called Russert, it is OK for Russert to lie to a judge while Fitzgerald plays along?

Given the absnece of real evidence behind the rest of your allegations, I’d think someone smart as you would start where teh evidence is–in another Libby attempt to coach a witness.

But I guess you don’t want to go there, do you?

I’m sorry – the absence of evidence that Russert’s affidavit has a lie in it? Have you read the affidavit?

Or the absence of evidence that Fitzgerald disclosed Dickerson but not Gregory, despite Ari’s court testimony that he leaked to both? Have you read that letter, or the trial reports?

Those are facts – everything you have offered in defense of that is speculation, much of it (Libby was coaching Russert, a near-perfect stranger?) irrelevant.

Just trying to clarify the difference here.

Did Libby Make a Deal?

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, March 8, 2007; 1:20 PM

“But then on Feb. 13, after barely two days of defense testimony, Libby’s team abruptly announced that neither Cheney nor Libby would take the stand. (See my Feb. 14 column, The Libby-Cheney Bummer.)

What happened in between? Why did Team Libby suddenly decide not to call such essential witnesses?”

“A possible hint comes today in the 14th paragraph of Peter Baker’s and Carol D. Leonnig’s Washington Post story about the fevered speculation regarding the prospect of Libby pardon:

“Despite the defense’s trial argument that Libby was made a scapegoat by the White House, aides and advisers said there is no anger toward him in the West Wing. Libby’s defense team reached out to an intermediary after its opening statement to reassure the White House about its strategy, according to a source close to the situation.”

Wow!

In what form did this reaching out take place? Was it two-way? Was Team Libby’s threat to attack Rove, call Cheney to the stand and potentially spill plenty of White House secrets just a bargaining chip in some sort of negotiation? Was their decision to rest their case in any way related to any promises from the White House?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00879.html

I will be contacting Waxman and Conyers and anyone else who can start the ball rolling to get all of the Prosecutor’s records and documents from the Libby trial and keep this mess front and center. The perjury and the obstruction were committed to cover-up the treasonous actions of the Bush admin., imho, and these actions need to be exposed. We can’t stop.

been waiting since the verdict, holding my breath…………waiting waiting waiting. knew it would take a few days for them to write their letters and such……dot their ‘i’s and cross their ‘t’s……..oh myyyyyyy.

((((WAXMAN))))

NOW i’m going to celebrate!!!!!!!!!