Posted on 02/07/2007 2:32:08 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - NBC newsman Tim Russert testified Wednesday he never discussed a CIA operative with vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, contradicting Libby's version to a grand jury in the CIA leak investigation.
The testimony came as prosecutors prepared to rest their perjury case against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff.
Russert, the host of "Meet the Press," testified about a July 2003 phone call in which Libby complained about a colleague's coverage. Libby has said that, at the end of the call, Russert brought up war critic Joseph Wilson and mentioned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
"That would be impossible," Russert testified Wednesday. "I didn't know who that person was until several days later."
That discrepancy is at the heart of Libby's perjury and obstruction trial. He is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.
During Libby's 2004 grand jury testimony, he said Russert told him "all the reporters know" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Libby now acknowledges he had learned about Plame a month earlier from Cheney but says he had forgotten about it and learned it again from Russert as if new.
Libby subsequently repeated the information about Plame to other journalists, always with the caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors say Libby concocted the Russert conversation to shield him from prosecution for revealing information from government sources.
Plame's identity was leaked shortly after her husband began accusing the Bush administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq. The controversy over the faulty intelligence was a major story in mid-2003.
Given that news climate, defense attorney Theodore Wells was skeptical about Russert's account.
"You have the chief of staff of the vice president of the United States on the telephone and you don't ask him one question about it?" Wells asked. He followed up moments later with, "As a newsperson who's known for being aggressive and going after the facts, you wouldn't have asked him about the biggest stories in the world that week?"
"What happened is exactly what I told you," Russert replied.
Russert originally told the FBI that he couldn't rule out discussing Wilson with Libby but had no recollection of it, according to an FBI report Wells read in court. Russert said Wednesday he did not believe he said that.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has spent weeks making the case that Libby was preoccupied with discrediting Wilson. Several former White House, CIA and State Department officials testified that Libby discussed Plame with them — all before the Russert conversation.
Fitzgerald has said Russert would be his final witness. Prosecutors spent the past few days playing audiotapes of Libby's grand jury testimony in court. In the final hours of those tapes Wednesday, Libby described a tense mood in the White House as the leak investigation began.
Though President Bush was publicly stating that nobody in the White House was involved in the leak, Libby knew that he himself had spoken to several reporters about Plame. He said he did not bring that up with Bush and was uncertain whether he discussed it with Cheney.
Libby did remember one conversation with Cheney, however, in which the vice president seemed surprised when told by his aide where Libby had learned Plame's identity.
"From me?" Cheney asked, tilting his head, Libby recalled.
Libby said he had forgotten that Cheney was his original source until finding his own handwritten notes on the conversation. The notes predated the Russert phone call by more than a month.
___
Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report.
Do you really think any of that is going to be admiisible?
Ok, so let me get this straight.
1. According to an FBI report, Russert told the FBI that he couldn't rule out discussing Wilson with Libby, but had no recollection of it.
2. A couple of years later, Russert said he does not believe that he said what the FBI claims he said to them, BUT NOW he knows for sure that he DIDN'T talk about the previous topic in a conversation that he said he had no recollection of.
If the defense lawyers left him with even an ounce of credibility, then they owe Libby a refund.
Russert knows that no one can challenge this information because it is his word against Libby's. Because of this, Libby can be charged for perjury? It does have an element of doubt; especially giving Russert's track record against the Bush Administration.
LOL.. I'll sign on to that one if ya get a few nundred others to go along too.
I hear ya on Sandy Burglar, our gubamint has failed us miserably on more than one occasion when it comes to the Justice Department and its actions or lack thereof.
Libby's defense team can't put anyone on the stand until it's their turn to call witnesses. To this point they've been limited to questioning prosecution witnesses and Wilson wasn't called by them.
To date this has been the prosecutor's case and all Libby's team could do was cross examine them about things they said.
It the defense's turn now, let's see what happens.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/02/russert_semiliv.html
You need to go to the Just one minute live thread, Wells rip Russert to pieces. He established Russert had a very poor memory, but most importantly Wells showed that Russert through his attorney had filled a false motion with the Federal court.
I'm not a lawyer but things did not go weel for Russert, this story was apparantly on deadline and didn't include the ending of todays proceedings
Libby's defense team can't put anybody on the stand until the prosecution rests.
Wilson has nothing to do with this.
The case is about Libby lying.
Juries believe everything a person on crutches says, don't they?
In a criminal trial, the prosecution takes the kickoff and has the first crack to prove its case. The defense can only play defense and attempt to impeach the prosecution's witnesses through cross examination. The defense gets the ball now that the prosecution has finished its run.
I have now completely exhausted my sports analogy bank.
IIRC the judge ruled that he would wait and see how and where the cross was leading before he would rule.
But the cross isn't over it is just recessed for the day, from reading the thread on JOM it seems that Wells totally surprised Fitz and Russert when his line of questions showed that Russert insisted he considered his talks with Libby confidential. And then showed that Russert had voluntarily talked the the FBI about the phone calls. Then he read the motion to quash the subpoenas in which Russert stated his objection was because he had to keep sources and statements confidential, after he had already turned over Libbys phone call to the FBI.
The day ended with Wells proclaiming that Russert had lied to a Federal Judge.
Wells is my new hero.
That's for the jury to decide, and is a major basis for the defense.
This case is all about numerous people remembering things which might not have made a precise impression at the time. People can misremember when, from whom, and even whether they heard something, they can also lie.
The defense doesn't need to convince the jury that any particular scenario is true, they only need to convince them that there is some doubt about what was really said by and to various people, or when. Alternatively, Libby might have misremembered, when questioned by the grand jury.
If the jury finds any of these conclusions to be plausible, then they must acquit. It's hard to get a perjury conviction. Especially if it looks like the prosecution may manipulated the investigation to target a particular person.
We need another source besides the Al AP to really find out what went on in the court room today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.