It’s Russert Versus Libby In Libby Plamegate Trial
So who are you going to believe? NBC’s Tim Russert (who it turns out was a favorite of Dick Cheney’s people in getting their spin out) or “Scooter” Libby (who frequently scooted to do Mr. Cheney’s bidding)? To wit:
NBC’s Tim Russert, the last prosecution witness in I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s perjury trial, testified Wednesday he did not inform Libby of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity, as Libby has said.Libby, the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, told FBI investigators and a grand jury he first learned Plame’s identity from Russert during a conversation on July 10, 2003. He later recanted, saying a note he found had jogged his memory, and that he initially heard the name from Cheney about a month before.
Russert was asked by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald whether the two discussed Plame. “No, that would be impossible because I did not know who that person was until several days later,” Russert said.
Asked whether Libby told him about Plame, Russert responded, “No.”
And it seemingly gets worse for Mr. Libby:
Rather, Russert said, Libby called to complain about comments anchor Chris Matthews had made about him on MSNBC.“If he had told me [Plame's identity], I would have asked him how he knew that, why he knew that, what is the relevance of that. And since [it was] a national security issue, my superiors [would] try to pursue it,” the moderator of “Meet the Press” said.
And, indeed, that sounds true to form. Big news organizations don’t just let their reporters (even star ones) running around like The Lone Ranger from the 1950s on stories that require a major commitment on the part of the news organization.
Russert added that there would be some question whether they could broadcast the information, “because that would be a significant story.”While cross-examining Russert, Ted Wells, Libby’s lawyer, tried to bolster the defense argument that Libby couldn’t recall details about Plame because he was immersed in other issues.
Wells asked Russert: “Did you tell the FBI you speak to many people on a daily basis and it’s difficult to reconstruct one from several months ago?”
Russert said he did not remember telling the FBI that it was difficult to reconstruct conversations but agreed that it was true.
This trial is shaping up as the equivalent of lifting a rock in a forest and seeing the little insects crawl out, stunned by the light of day. It’s still too early to tell, but it’s looking like in the end Mr. Libby may have to do some time, but the person who may come out with the most soiled reputation will be a certain person whom you should avoid going hunting with.
And the press? More and more Washington elite journalists and columnists are looking like willing and unwilling pawns in a game in which information is officially manipulated for political ends. If Cheney, Libby & Bush are getting a black eye, the press should have a red face.
Other Weblogs Are Reporting And Even Covering This Story. Also Check Out:
Just One Minute, Firedoglake, Booman Tribune
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “It’s Russert Versus Libby In Libby Plamegate Trial”
Don’t put out the story the Whitehouse spin machine expects, won’t be invited to the Crawfod BBQ. VP offices calls to harrass, if at WH Press briefing – like a a Fox reporter getting the cold shoulder from
ObamaOsama Hussein.Uh- Libby has about as much credibility as Cheney did when he said on CNN ” We’ve had enormous successes in Iraq”! Libby threw himself under the bus to protect the Veep, whom he worships. Cheney, however, can’t do much for Libby except ask Bush to put him on his list for a pardon. The real issue in this case is that Cheney set out to discredit a former Ambassador by claiming the reason he was sent to Niger in the first place was nepotism. He was willing to out a CIA agent who was covert and worked in a fairly high-level way on investigating WMD’s in the ME. Um, and by doing so, I must state that he has emboldened the enemy. Doesn’t he think they watch Hardball?
Cheney knew that the Niger documents were forged and let Bush put those 16 words about uranium in the SOTU anyway. He is the one who should be sitting in that courtroom, as Libby is taking the bullet for HIM.
Don’t you wonder how Russert felt when he heard people from the Bush administration say in sworn testimony that for all practical purposes they considered him a patsy?
Joe’s post is based only on the prosecution questioning of Russert.
The defense cross-examination was pretty brutal, with Wells opening up holes in Russert’s credibility. From JustOneMinute liveblogging:
“In sum, Wells established that (a) the FBI report of his conversations (they say he had two, he only recalls one) made far closer in time to the event indicate he conceded that Ms. Wilson’s name may have come up in their conversation though he earlier discounted that as “impossible” (b) In a heated matter involving the Buffalo News, his own memory was faulty. He’d made two angry calls to a critical reporter, denied that he had, and then, after checking his phone records, apologized, asserting he had no memory whatsoever of the calls….”
Also note the flurry of prosecution motions to block Libby from calling Andrea Mitchell to the stand. Mitchell had declared on camera that everyone in Washington was aware of Palme’s status…no big secret…has since backtracked, but clearly Fitzgerald wants to stop Libby from calling her.
It ain’t over till its over, said Yogi Berra. The defense has not begun making their case yet. If they can get Wilson on the stand, it could be a bloodbath for Fitzgerald.
I still find the hypocrisy of those on the left that condemned the right for wanting to hold Bill Clinton accountable for perjury but have no problem wanting to do the same for Libby, who is known to NOT be the leaker, amusing to a high degree.
My bad…Joe’s post did cite Well’s cross-examination. The cross-examination did not sound as deadly as in the liveblogging (re: Russert not remembering going off at the reporters) Nor the prosecution attempting to block Libby from calling Mitchell (what is there to worry about there for Fitzgerald?).
I don’t think Darth Cheney cares what anyone thinks about him, except probably his family. He is hard core.
[...] Must be true. Russert said he was “in listening mode.” Good to know the guys who ask the talking head don’t just talk themselves. The Plame story from its beginning has been another tale of the Bush Administration using “journalists” to puff up their stories. Too bad for Libby Russert didn’t continue the pattern. [...]
I hope someone writes a book about the media in Washington. The WH leaking to the press, the press leaking to the public, everyone in these odd symbionic relationtioships between the press and the insiders, and everyone using everybody else.
It could be a fascinating book and a great movie.
AR, This situation concerns prewar intelligence and the revealing of a covert CIA expert on ME WMD proliferation, which relates to our national security in a time of war.
Its pretty clear that Libby was following the VP’s directives in dealing with the media, yet Fitzgerald did not even make Cheney swear in.
So I’d say Clinton was targetted by a conservative prosecutor knowing he’d perjure himself, while Cheney was protected from being exposed to perjury or conspiracy charges, even though its evident from the testimony he’s behind the leaks.
AR, my feeling about the Clinton impeachment was that the lie under oath was egregious but shouldn’t have risen to the level of impeachment because my understanding of perjury law is that the lie has to be material to the case and the Lewinsky affair wasn’t. So I have to agree with Kim on that (gosh, Kim, what’s going on with us today?? LOL) It really is comparing apples to oranges because if Libby did lie, it would meet the legal standard for perjury.
I think Marlowe’s right though- I think Mitchell’s testimony would be very relevant because I’m not convinced that the “outing” was as serious as it is being claimed.
Oh, for heaven’s sake. The conservatives try to constantly make a point that the outing wasn’t that serious. Do any of them read the details? Plame had an organizational cover, a private company that she supposedly was working for when doing covert work. That cover was still in place when she was outed so others could use it. Outing Plame destroyed every bit of effort that went into that. And not one defender of the Administration on this issue has shown that anyone in the Administration made any effort to discover whether or not their leaks would be damaging. They didn’t care.
Jim, The point is that if what Mitchell said is true, the “outing” had already occurred. So why shouldn’t she be put on the stand to see if that claim holds up?
I agree with you that at least from what has been reported, there was no attempt by anyone in the administration to determine whether or not the leak of Plame’s identity would be damaging. The only mitigating factor there, though, would be if they believed that her status was already common knowledge and therefore believed that what they were leaking was only in regard to the reasons that her husband was chosen to go to Niger- and not that they were leaking Plame’s identity as a covert agent. So, I’m interested in knowing whether or not it would have been reasonable for them to have made that assumption.
CS- Perhaps there is hope for progressives and conservatives after all! But you do see where conservative commenters here are bringing up Clinton, the same way the progressives bring up Bush, LOL! I think this prosecutor has treated the WH and Cheney with kid gloves, compared to Ken Starr!
Kim, To some degree I’d agree with you but my guess is that whatever complicity Cheney and Rove may have had was not documentable (is that a word? LOL). And honestly, I think there was probably wrongdoing on Clinton’s part that wasn’t documentable either, but Starr went bulldog on him by going after the personal stuff to try to bring him down that way. That’s crossing the line of what an aggressive prosecutor should do, and I wouldn’t want Fitzgerald to stoop to that level (and I don’t think I’d feel differently if the party affiliations were reversed.) I thought it was wrong then and the same tactics would be wrong now.
CS- you may be right, but I still have a lot of suspicions about the way the case was handled. I think Scooter threw himself out as a sacrificial lamb, covering up Cheney’s involvement in the leak. But why wasn’t Cheney sworn in when he gave his testimony to the Grand Jury?? That to me indicates that Fitzgerald didn’t take it all the way to the top. I wouldn’t want him to take it as far as Ken Starr did either, though, because the law should always trump political considerations.
The real scandal to me is that we never found out what happened to Joe Wilson’s report. Did Cheney bury it, and then discredit Wilson so that Bush could make the Niger claim in the SOTU? Remember the fuss started when Wilson wrote that editorial criticizing Cheney and the administration’s use of false intel.
I don’t really think anyone but Scooter will end up paying for this, but the coverup and Cheney’s role in this mess continues to bug me.
Oh, I’m well aware of course. The question is whether or not Wilson’s criticism was accurate though, too. A less sinister version would be that Wilson blew things out of proportion and then Cheney did feel the need to discredit him. That’s still dirty politics and I don’t approve, but I can see the rationale and see that it’s not as malicious as the administration discrediting someone who was telling the truth. Honestly I don’t think we’ll ever know and I assume there’s probably some guilt on members of the administration- but I don’t know to what level.
CS- I’m not saying every word in Wilson’s editorial was the gospel, or even that he handled the situation very well, but the information that was in Bush’s SOTU was based on a forged document. Even Hadley admitted that the claim that Saddam was getting yellowcake from Niger wasn’t true.
It looks to me like Cheney indirectly sent Wilson (by asking the CIA to check it out) On Wilson’s return he reported that the documents were forgeries, and that the claim was false. It is unknown what Cheney’s office did with that information, but if he knew it was false when it was put in the SOTU in Jan of 2003, that’s pretty significant isn’t it? That summer Cheney, Rove and Libby began the organized effort to discredit Wilson by outing his wife (though Armitage was the first to out her so it wasn’t a crime when the others did). Its the misuse of prewar intel that was known to be false, that is the most important factor here.
CS,
In spite of the constant claim from the right wing blogosphere and Bush mouthpieces in the right wing media I’ve never really seen any proof that her position was really widely known.
Kim,
I haven’t seen proof either but that’s why I’d like to see Mitchell put on the stand to see if there is any credibility to that claim. Again, my overall opinion is that we’ll never know the full truth so I’m willing to assume there is some culpability from the Bush administration and assume that we won’t know anything more specific than that when all’s said and done.
Press the Meet: the anti-Meet the Press…
Welcome to Press the Meet. We explore the stories that Meet the Press ignores……