Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Tim Russert is all over the place on this Libby indictment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 11:26 AM
Original message
Tim Russert is all over the place on this Libby indictment
If you saw his show last night, and MTP today, he appears to be constantly explaining his role in the situation.

It's funny watching it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think he has stuck his finger in the air
and determined that the wind is blowing in the direction of the admin tossing Libby overboard and so tim thinks he is safe going on TV and bragging about how he help expose Libby as a perjurer. It'll be fun watching him weasel when and if the WH offers a vigorous defense of Libby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. on last night's show, Russert said........
....that when Libby lied and said he got the name from Russert, Libby apparently didn't tell Russert that he was doing that! You would think if someone is going to lie about something he heard from someone, he would at least contact the other person and tell him what you are doing.

And if Libby had told him, would Russert have kept the lie going?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. So, Russert's complaining he wasn't asked to cooperate in a conspiracy??
That's a very interesting stance, to say the least. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. I'm not saying he was complaining.........
.....it was my impression that he was simply explaining how it happened and how he explained it to the Grand Jury.

The rest of my post was just thoughts that occured to me after I heard Russert's explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I wonder that too
Very interesting to think about. Russert is one of those who goes with the winds. Plus, he's probably mad that he got blamed and is afraid to get into trouble for being involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. it almost makes you wonder why Libby would make such a stupid mistake.....
....I mean Libby is also an attorney, surely he knew Fitz would ask Russert about the conversation!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. It was Libby's job to derail the investigation. His lies didn't
have to make sense. In fact, the more outlandish his lies, the more scrambling the grand jury had to do.

This is why Fitzgerald said that they could have been finished a year ago. Because of Libby, they weren't--and they didn't have time to address the real crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. that makes sense..........
......so now that they know Libby lied and what he lied about, I wonder if the new Grand Jury will try to indict based on conspiracy or IIPA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. But Libby initially made the Russert claim in 2003 when consensus
was the investigation by the Ashcroft DOJ would go nowhere. No grand jury, no Fitz until months later. By that time Scooter was sort of married to that whopper. Hard to retract a claim that was the central "proof" of Libby's innocence.

Remember in 2003 Bush had smugly said that probably no one would ever know since the media protects their sources. Usually that is the case, until a grand jury gets involved and subpoenas them and the prosecutor forces them to either testify or go to jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. oh!!
now it's starting to make sense!! That figures.........once he made that statement he had to stick with it..........otherwise he would look like a liar.

hmmm........I wonder why he didn't try the 'I forgot' defense back then?

I also think he was relying on the fact that an attorney probably would not jail a journalist just because they refused to talk. But then he didn't count on a great prosecutor like Fitzgerald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Reportedly he did try the "I forgot" defense with Fitz but it was
after he had repeated the lie to the grand jury not just to the 2003 investigators and Fitz wasn't buying. Fitz had Judy's testimony that Libby was leaking to her weeks before his conversation with Russert. So Fitz bagged him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. good for Fitz!
and after all this time, no one else should believe it either!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
25. It's All The Access Game
Look at this thing like a big game of telephone. The scheme was to get Wilson's name slimed and to use reporters to do it. This was planted around town many different ways...Scooter, Rove and proxies yet unnamed spoke "off the record" all over town not only to get the Wilson story planted but to create such a confusing trail that it would be hard for any to ascertain where the leak ever came from.

Libby tried to play his end of the phone game and shoveled it off on Russert thinking Russert would play off it as well seeing that Timmy could lose his coveted access and connections if he didn't play along. It's the Aspens and Timmy's one of 'em. The problem breaks down that somehow Libby didn't communicate to Russert that this was how the game was supposed to be played and Timmy didn't play along with saying he couldn't recall where the name came from. Remember, Judy's still trying to play that Flame game.

The gambit here is to use the media to compromise itself...and the boooosh regime sure has done a great job of that. Between the cronyism of the punditocracy...Rove and Russert and Mrs. Greenspan and Tweety all being very good friends or a Wolfie Blitzer saying how great a guy the party hack/liar Cliff May is...attempting to give these crooks cover and credibility. Timmy's still not sure how things are shaking out as to how he plays it. If he screws Rove or the Repugnicans too bad, he's screwed his own pooch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah, Russert has a lot of 'splainin to do
Russert was the first reporter that Libby approached with the attack on the Wilsons. This makes me wonder about how close of a "working" relationship they have had. How many other talking points has Libby given to Russert in the past? It seems like Timmy is working overtime to convince people that he wasn't a tool of this administration, although I'm sure that some of his colleagues are not convinced--neither are we.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Russert was also the first person Libby
approached with attacks on another member of the media (Chris Matthews?) because he didn't like the way this reporter was covering the story. According to Russert himself, he PASSED ON this complaint to an NBC executive. The fact that Russert is apparantly the Republican go-to guy for spreading dirt speaks volumes. Between Ashleigh Banfield's firing, and Russert/Mitchell, I'm starting to think MSNBC is as bad as Fox News.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
23. That's not the case, though. Miller was the first in June 2003. It's in
Edited on Sun Oct-30-05 05:56 PM by Garbo 2004
the indictment.

Libby's conversation with Russert was in July. You're buying Libby's lie that he talked to Russert about Wilson (and that's how he learned of Plame's identity). When clearly he already knew and was talking about it to Miller before his July conversation with Russert when he complained about Tweety.

I'm thinking maybe in Fall 2003 when Libby had to find a source, thinking the investigation would be buried in Ashcroft's DOJ and no journos would ever be forced to testify, he simply went to his phone log and picked a DC insider media person he did talk to in the relevant time frame (July) who might plausibly have the info. Thinking it would never come to the test and disclosure. Not just his conversation with Russert, but his weeks earlier conversation with Judy Miller. By the time Fitz came on the scene, Libby was married to the main points of his story and couldn't easily retract them. The "I forgot" defense didn't work.

Remember, it wasn't just Russert's statements to Fitz passed on to the grand jury that sunk Libby, it was also Miller's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Z_I_Peevey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. A long time ago
I walked across a concrete dam to get to a swimming hole that was known to contain a water moccasin or two. One summer day I looked down on the dry side of the dam to see masses and masses of snakes, coiled and wriggling in big balls. A person couldn't tell where one snake began and another ended. It was just disgusting.

It occurs to me, as these Washington snakes try to disentangle themselves one from another, we'll be seeing some mighty entertaining moves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I saw a similar scene on a nature program
Edited on Sun Oct-30-05 12:19 PM by rocknation
I think it's the way that particular breed of snake has sex.

In view of the involvement of Russert (and Tweety?), shouldn't they have been recused from covering the story?

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. YES! I was just about to post this op when I saw yours. Anyone who
had anything to do with this case, starting wth Novracula, should have recused themselves from reporting on it. How can you possibly remain objective? (Not that that has been a primary concern for the Russerts, Tweety's, Millers, Mitchells, etc., anyway.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tulsakatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. good description.........
I have a feeling that the more these snakes try to untangle themselves, the more trouble they'll be in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. That will be forever in my
mind when thinking about the bushits and the m$m types i.e. russert, kurtz, blitzer, mitchell, et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. And don't forget Tweety.
Though I think he got an attack of his conscience and tried to warn Joe Wilson what was coming down the pike in terms of the WH going after his wife.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gardenista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
29. Yes, and a few self-inflicted bite wounds, if this all plays out as I
think it will. Nice analogy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
9. I think he likes the attention.
He was honored that Fitzgerald mentioned his name in a nationally televised press conference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Punkingal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
10. I watched him on Tim Russert last night....
and I think he's GLEEFUL to be mixed up in this. It feeds his ego.

And he said he called New York to tell some higher up about Libby's complaint...I thought that was very telling information. The press is intimidated by this White House. I guess they are all afraid they will miss out on scoops, or won't get invited to the White House for a State Dinner. It's discouraging, especially since Russert used to be such a strong, and open, Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jose Diablo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
15. Yeah Tim, we know your role in it, Mockingbird. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
16. Not to defend him in general
but while the investigation was going on I don't think they should say too much about the details of what they testified to.
Maybe Fitz has me hyped up about the importance of not talking about it, though witnesses legally can.

When ordered to testify they did but to then talk publicly about it while still in the GJ probably isn't a great idea. I thought about how I'd feel if it was Clinton and the press. Would I want them to blab?

OK, that was a blow job, not outing a spy. And it's not like the press has integrity...but I don't think it was wrong to wait.

What I don't understand is why no one on any show is calling anyone on this "bipartisan intelligence report" that wilson lied. If we all know it was only 3 partisan senators who added that and signed it, not in the body of the report or agreed to by the majority, how can they not know? It's not the point of invstigation...but does anyone do their homework?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-05 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
20. Timmy Taterhead played with fire...
And it tried to burn him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-31-05 02:25 AM
Response to Original message
27. On MTP today, he explained and explained and did not
make eye contact with the camera, or anyone at the table. He looked everywhere else. I found that interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC