Libby lawyers to put Abramson on stand

Defense attorneys for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on Thursday won the opportunity to question a journalist they hope will undercut the prosecution's perjury case against the former White House aide.

After the jury was sent home until Monday, prosecutors joined news media attorneys in efforts to limit the defense's ability to call and question other journalists.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ruled that Libby's lawyers can call New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson over objections from the prosecutors and her lawyer, Charles Leeper.

Defense attorneys want Abramson to repeat her out-of-court denials that reporter Judith Miller urged Abramson — then Washington bureau chief — to pursue the story of Plame's role in sending her husband to Niger to investigate whether Iraq was trying to buy uranium there for nuclear weapons.

Walton reserved judgment until Monday on how far the defense can go in questioning NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell about a videotaped interview she gave Oct. 3, 2003.

In the video, played with the jury out of the room, Mitchell said she and other intelligence reporters who were trying to find out who went to Niger knew that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Since then, she has recanted that, claiming she got confused about the timing referenced by the questioner.

Because Mitchell worked for Russert, the defense claims this would undercut his story that he first learned about Plame from a July 14, 2003, column about Plame and support Libby's story that Russert told him on July 10 that lots of reporters know about Plame.

Walton was dubious, because Mitchell now recants the statement and Russert testified he didn't hear about Plame from Mitchell.

Haven't yet been able to find if there are proceedings going on today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/

February 09, 2007 Russert On Imus

On Don Imus this morning, Tim Russert was adamant that neither David Gregory nor Andrea Mitchell had received a leak about Valerie Plame Wilson. However, he was not free to talk about much else - Imus asked him about his FBI interview, but Russert simply said that folks would have to look at the trial testimony, and that he could comment when this was over.

Whatever. At a minimum, I would think that NBC would want Ms. Mitchell to take the stand so that we can see, by her confident, forceful, assured demeanor that she is telling the truth about not having a source. The fact that she nearly swallowed her mike while stammering on Imus can't be held against her - she has had plenty of time to practice since then.

And if anyone is having trouble thinking of a reason for Russert or Mitchell to lie, please - at this point, they can see the evidence in favor of Libby's side of the story, and there does not seem to be any - Libby did not have the foresight to write an email or a memo commemorating this call, apparently, although he did testify that he mentioned it to Karl Rove just before Rove went on vacation. (I bet Rove forgot, since he was distracted and forgetting Matt Cooper then, too).

So if Russert and Mitchell stick to their story, they can ride it out. If they admit now that Russert has been misleading the Special Counsel and grand jury for over two years, with Mitchell's assistance, I bet Russert loses his job (unless NBC renames it "Meet The Weasel").

And since Andrea has been complicit in her public statements lately, she may take a huge hit to her credibility as well. So she has plenty of reason to play along, and not much reason to change her tune.

I happen to have reasonable doubt as to whether she is truly source-free, but it does not appear that anyone will provide proof of anything (unless a source comes forward, thereby passing up a lovely blackmail opportunity. But it wouldn't be cash blackmail - it would just be a promise of "fair" coverage from NBC's Washington Bureau.)

As to why they would have lied in the first place? In Russert's case, it would have been to conceal the fact that he had a source, namely Andrea Mitchell.

And why didn't Andrea lie from the outset? Maybe no one explained to her that by admitting she had a source she was inviting a subpoena. And let's note the "denial" from NBC issued on her behalf on Sept 29, 2003, with emphasis added:

TOM BROKAW: NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell has been identified by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent. But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert Novak column was published. And that discussion, she said, was off the record.

Administration official? Huh? Not everyone in the world is an Administration official. For that matter, not everyone in Washington who works for the government is an "Administration official". My understanding is that an "Administration official" is a political appointee; a "government official" would be a careerist at, for example, State.

So Mitchell did not have an "Administration" source (Novak claimed to have two Administration sources in his column). In September 2003 NBC did not deny her having a government source, or a private citizen (Joe Wilson, for example) as a source.

I want to see her on the stand. No Mitchell, no peace.

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070208/NEWS01/70208010

Libby gets lift from ’Law and Order’ star Fred Thompson

WASHINGTON (AP)— One of the nation’s most familiar “prosecutors” showed in Scooter Libby’s camp in court Thursday.

But it was a “prosecutor” who only plays one on TV.

Joining Libby’s public relations person, Barbara Comstock, in the public gallery was former Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson, who plays a New York City prosecutor on the NBC series “Law and Order.” He came to listen while another NBC star, Washington bureau chief Tim Russert was cross examined by defense attorney Theodore Wells.

At one point, Libby’s wife, Harriet Grant, went back and sat beside Thompson. They hugged, laughed and chatted for a few minutes before she returned to her seat in the front row.

Asked why he came Thompson said, “I’m a friend of Scooter Libby and his family.”

During a late-morning break, Libby and Thompson shook hands in the hallway and went into a private conference room to chat.

*snip*

The former senator is on the steering committee of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund Trust, an organization that set out to raise more than $5 million to help finance Libby’s defense. Thompson, who declined to answer more questions Thursday, hosted a fundraiser at his northern Virginia home last May to raise money for Libby’s defense fund.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I LOVE FRED THOMPSON!

Please also add me to your ping list.

I sure hope that Libby's lawyers have something to impeach Mitchell, Gregory and Russert with. Otherwise, Libby is going to have to depend on GW for a pardon.

One other thought: Since Ambassadors have to have relatively high levels of clearance, many at State would have to know the status of each and every Mrs Wilson - including the current one. I have always thought that at best Plame's CIA status would be an open secret and the fact that she was married to an ambassador would eliminate her value as anything but an overt CIA employee. My recollection of State personnel files is that they in fact list spouses occupation - but that is from quite a few years ago. Bottom-line given Joe Wilson's role and his narcissism, Plame's status is likely to have been known throughout the incestuous ranks of Washington media types and dem operatives - (OK, I know the same thing!)

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.