{"id":897,"date":"2007-02-08T08:22:57","date_gmt":"2007-02-08T13:22:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2007\/02\/08\/a-russert-theory\/"},"modified":"2007-02-08T09:39:23","modified_gmt":"2007-02-08T14:39:23","slug":"a-russert-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2007\/02\/08\/a-russert-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"my Russert Theory<\/em>…"},"content":{"rendered":"

[timeline from Arianna’s blog<\/strong><\/a>, my additions are in Red<\/font><\/strong>] <\/p>\n

\n

November 2003<\/strong>
Phone call to Russert from F.B.I. Agent Eckenrode about his conversation with Libby in July 2003.<\/font><\/p>\n

December 30, 2003<\/strong>
Patrick Fitzgerald appointed Special Counsel in the Plame investigation. <\/font> <\/p>\n

March 2004<\/strong>
Libby testifies before the Grand Jury. <\/font><\/p>\n

May 21, 2004<\/strong>
Federal grand jury subpoenas Russert to testify about whether the White House leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to the news media. NBC vows to fight the subpoena. <\/p>\n

June 4, 2004<\/strong>
NBC files motion to quash the subpoena.<\/p>\n

July 20, 2004<\/strong>
Court rules against NBC, ordering Russert to provide testimony to Fitzgerald. (News of this is not made public by NBC until it’s disclosed as part of NBC’s Aug. 9, 2004 statement<\/a><\/strong>.)<\/p>\n

August 7, 2004<\/strong>
Russert interviewed under oath by Fitzgerald.<\/p>\n

Aug 9, 2004<\/strong>
NBC releases statement<\/a><\/strong> regarding Russert’s testifying: "Mr. Russert told the Special Prosecutor that, at the time of that conversation, he did not know Ms. Plame’s name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby. …The Special Prosecutor’s questions addressed a telephone conversation initiated by Mr. Libby and focused on what Mr. Russert said during that conversation. Mr. Libby had previously told the FBI about the conversation and had formally requested that the conversation be disclosed. The Special Prosecutor can share Mr. Russert’s answers with the grand jury."<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yesterday in the Libby Trial, the defense attorney, Wells, grilled Tim Russert unmercifully about a paradox in his testifying behavior [see below<\/strong><\/a>]. Frankly, while I was reading it as it was posted yesterday, I was hopelessly lost about its significance.<\/p>\n

Last night, I was in a discussion of this point in the comments on Firedoglake<\/strong><\/a>, and came up with a theory [I posted below<\/strong><\/a>, sort of]. Here’s what I said: <\/p>\n

\n
\t\t\t \t Mickey<\/strong> says: <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tFebruary 7th, 2007 at 8:32 pm\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

… <\/p>\n

But, the more I ponder it, the more I think the thing that explains Russert’s inconsistency is that someone got to him<\/strong> between the F.B.I. call and the Grand Jury supoena and said “Hush up!” Libby’s alibi was going to be his one sided reporting about Russert, who wouldn’t then testify. Fitz may well have broken down the grand plan when he went nose to nose with Judith Miller. So now, the reason Libby looks like such a moron is that he thought he was bullet-proof in the Grand Jury with Miller and Russert taking the “first” [amendment] path to silence. It’s a much more believable hypothesis than that he’s simply a fool.<\/p>\n

Makes one wonder, “Who would’ve gone to NBC<\/strong>, the NYT<\/strong>, and maybe Time Magazine<\/strong> to push this whole First Amendment privilege scenerio? Who would they have gone to? <\/p>\n

Oh, the joy of conspiracy theories! <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\t\t <\/div>\n

But I have to give respondant timesink<\/strong> credit for nailing it. His response fleshes out the idea and gives it some legs: <\/p>\n

\n
\t\t\t \t timesink<\/strong> says: <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\tFebruary 7th, 2007 at 9:35 pm\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

I’m in agreement with Mickey @ 121.<\/p>\n

While it may be fun to skewer pumpkinhead on the charge of hypocrisy you are missing the greater significance. <\/p>\n

Even today, major news media still has ingrained within it the concept of protecting its prerogatives as stated in the First Amendment. This is reflexive and it is almost an axiomatic reaction IF — and I emphasize IF — there is something to protect. <\/p>\n

The real noteworthy aspect of Russert speaking to the FBI is that it represents the strongest evidence that his recollection of the Libby conversation – at the time the FBI called him – is the correct recitation. That is that he interpreted Libby’s call as a “viewer complaint” and NOT and an off the record discussion with a source. <\/p>\n

Now remember the FBI conversation occurred in November 2003.<\/p>\n

Then Fitzgerald got appointed and things became serious. <\/p>\n

Only after this did NBC — in its corporate persona — start to make the First Amendment claims. Now you can argue (a) hypocrisy about the first amendment claims OR (b) you can argue that the First Amendment claim was made because it had filtered back to GE corporate that Russert’s testimony would be the linchpin of a major indictment of the administration. So, in effect, the first amendment argument was part of the cover-up. <\/p>\n

I choose (b).<\/p>\n

And don’t forget there was an election coming.<\/p>\n

Russert didn’t give a thought to shielding Libby because he truly never was a source and Russert didn’t believe there was anything to protect. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So, between March and May 2004, the Administration got to NBC<\/strong> told them to be quiet about all of this – claim "the first." But Libby was already in the noose<\/u>, having used Russert as an excuse<\/u> [poetry?]. When Fitzgerald beat NBC<\/strong>, the die was cast.<\/div>\n

So, today we get to see where all of this leads…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[timeline from Arianna’s blog, my additions are in Red] November 2003 Phone call to Russert from F.B.I. Agent Eckenrode about his conversation with Libby in July 2003. December 30, 2003Patrick Fitzgerald appointed Special Counsel in the Plame investigation. March 2004 Libby testifies before the Grand Jury. May 21, 2004 Federal grand jury subpoenas Russert to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}