Posted on 02/13/2007 1:03:39 PM PST by NormsRevenge
"Libby says he was preoccupied with national security intelligence and honestly forgot details about Plame. He says he learned her identity from Cheney, forgot it, and learned it again a month later from NBC's Tim Russert and believed it was new information."
-----
Uh, if he hasn't testfied and is not going to testify, that isn't part of the record and thus is not something he's said. Seems to me, anyway.
I wonder if they change the witness seat cushion after a "journalist" like Russert and Pincus testifies?
That's the point - Russert was not forced to testify in front of the grand jury at all, rather he testified in his office, for less than a half hour, with his lawyer present.
Yesterday, the prosecutor attempted to show that that courtesy was extended to many of the other "journalists" who were interviewed for the case. I would expect that the defense will highlight (during their closing argument) the impropriety of giving Russert such a softball interview as well as other extraordinary "accommodations" made for Russert, especially when Russert's testimony alone formed the basis of at least two of the counts in the indictment (if I remember correctly).
Last week, the prosecution forced the jurors to sit through an eight-hour-long audio tape recording of Libby's testimony before the grand jury, and so they got it into the trial record through that method.
Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like you're following the trial very closely. Did the defense object to the playing of that recording?
Amazing that he pulls down five million bucks a year in the hyper-competitive broadcast media market, isn't it?
Reading the other thread with the synopsis of the testimony to date I don't see anything that damaging to Libby. The only testimony that would hurt Libby is Russert's.
However the defense did a good job of pointing out Russerts own faulty memory. So the question is did Libby lie or did he have a faulty memory? I see nowhere in the testimonies for a reason for Libby to lie. I would vote for a faulty memory. The other possibility is Russert has lied.
If my recollection is accurate, the defense objected at least on the grounds that the jury was already going to get Libby's grand jury testimony in the form of written transcripts, and therefore there was no need to put them through the eight-hour ordeal...
Sorry I messed up my html. please excuse me...
I agree with you.
I read the JustOneMinute blog as well, and the case that is being (mis)reported in the media is definitely NOT the case that is being presented.
The defense, I believe, has shot huge holes in Fitz's production.
And Russert? Well, I think he may be tossing and turning tonight.
Certainly true the lawyers can't "testify" for their client, but it seems to me the lawyers can still argue to the jurors that this is a reasonable assumption based on the evidence. Pretty wide latitude is given to argument, it may be reversible error if the closing argument is hamstrung.
Including this in the story, when Wilson has been proven a total liar, is so misleading.
Including lies that hurt conservatives, Republicans or the current Administration are reflex actions by DBM writers. As Ann Richards might have said, "They cain't he'p it."
Believe it or not, NBC's Williams just promo'd on MSNBC that NBC Nightly News was going to do a segment on Russert and "Big Russ"; something about how Russert is taking care of him or other such nonsense.
Great, I love the fact Russert made money off his old man by marveling at the fact the father actually had values, which rich snot Russert totally lacks. Second only to Tom Brokaw's amazement that his dad's generation actually fought WWII with bravery, rather than declaring a mutiny and selling out to nazism.
Novak testified (after Russert had finished testifying) that his article about Plame was given to his distributors at the AP on Friday, July 11. Russert, as head of the NBC news dept had to have seen that article before we saw it in newspapers on Monday, July 14.
I hope this is what Wells is going to ask him: did you see the embargoed column by Robert Novak.....
Did anyone in your news organization bring this column or its contents to your attention, before your Meet the Press show on Sunday, July 13, 2003.
Wide latitude but not unbounded. Sounds to me like the record will not contain any evidence of Libby's thoughts on which the jury could possibly base the sort of inference you suggest. Also, will be hard to squeeze
in such an argument when the judge has expressly prohibited it. My guess
is that the defense anticipated the judge's ruling when they decided to not call Libby, so they don't consider the prohibition important. But that's all it is, a guess.
I notice on Imus this a.m. that IMUS believed both Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert knew about Plame before they ever spoke to Libby or others. They heard this from other journalists.
I also note Frank Rich said he thought this story was overblown and that no one had the intent of "outing" Plame. He does think the Administriation "used a hammer on a flea."
Sounds like NBC is circling the wagons. They are getting their spin machine into high gear.
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.