Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russert contradicts Libby's testimony
AP on Yahoo ^ | 2/7/07 | Matt Apuzzo - ap

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: contradicts; fitzfong; russert; scooterlibby; testimony
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last
To: mallardx

Do you really think any of that is going to be admiisible?


21 posted on 02/07/2007 2:42:39 PM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
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.

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.

22 posted on 02/07/2007 2:42:43 PM PST by VRWCmember (Everyone is entitled to my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"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."

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.

23 posted on 02/07/2007 2:45:42 PM PST by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Fitzgerald is trying to send Libby to prison for years because what he told the FBI differs from one version of what Russert claims to remember. That's the mainstay of his case, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, given that it's a DC jury, it may work.
24 posted on 02/07/2007 2:46:56 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

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.


25 posted on 02/07/2007 2:47:12 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mallardx

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.


26 posted on 02/07/2007 2:47:16 PM PST by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

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


27 posted on 02/07/2007 2:52:11 PM PST by federal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

28 posted on 02/07/2007 2:54:07 PM PST by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
Think big.
Start small.

This "circle j@#k" exercise can open the doors to bigger things, like bona fide treason. Sandy Burger knows that better than anybody. This trial isn't a farce, it's a proving ground. For Cripes sake, just look at the lineup.
29 posted on 02/07/2007 2:56:12 PM PST by ishabibble (ALL-AMERICAN INFIDEL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: federal
No, he AP write wanted to bury the facts and talk the spin which is what Cheney and Bush. Fitz political agenda already came out , he was after Cheney and Bush.

Did the Judge limit the question asked to Russert like Fitz and Russert requested .
30 posted on 02/07/2007 2:57:15 PM PST by BurtSB (the price of freedom is eternal vigilance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mallardx

Libby's defense team can't put anybody on the stand until the prosecution rests.


31 posted on 02/07/2007 2:58:59 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mallardx

Wilson has nothing to do with this.

The case is about Libby lying.


32 posted on 02/07/2007 3:04:33 PM PST by JNL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Tim Russert....uses crutches to walk into U.S. Federal Court ...for the I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby perjury trial.

Juries believe everything a person on crutches says, don't they?

33 posted on 02/07/2007 3:05:04 PM PST by SteamShovel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mallardx
What really infuriates me is that Libby's defense team has not put the real liar, Joe Wilson, on the stand and made him answer numerous questions under oath on his constantly changing stories.

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.

34 posted on 02/07/2007 3:09:32 PM PST by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BurtSB

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.


35 posted on 02/07/2007 3:15:54 PM PST by federal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: federal
The day ended with Wells proclaiming that Russert had lied to a Federal Judge.

Wells is my new hero.

36 posted on 02/07/2007 3:28:54 PM PST by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Buckeye
So, it appears that Libby has a first rate attorney who hasn't been threatened with a visit to Ft. Marcy( or has decided to follow the Bush directive and BRING EM ON
37 posted on 02/07/2007 3:44:44 PM PST by shadeaud (Liberals suffer from acute interior cornial craniorectoitis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
If all the witnesses can't rememeber exactly what happened at that time then that testimony is tainted if they say they rememeber now.

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.

38 posted on 02/07/2007 3:53:36 PM PST by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 3niner

We need another source besides the Al AP to really find out what went on in the court room today.


39 posted on 02/07/2007 4:14:04 PM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
We need another source besides the Al AP to really find out what went on in the court room today.

Live Blog

40 posted on 02/07/2007 4:20:12 PM PST by greyfoxx39 (Just remember, fully HALF of the people you encounter in life are below average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson