MSM/DNC Tim Russert's Role in Plame Affair

[Annie]

Lots of links at both of the following:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/the_times_joins.html

The Times Joins The Russert Cover-up

On Wednesday the normally fine Douglas Jehl of the NY Times went into the tank on the Tim Russert question, which is, did Tim Russert tell Libby Lewis that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and was involved in his selection for the Niger trip. From Mr. Jehl:

But over an 18-month period in 2004 and 2005, Mr. Fitzgerald has succeeded in obtaining testimony from five reporters about their conversations with senior White House officials, gleaning details about discussions over breakfast, on the telephone and in government offices. The reporters included Tim Russert of NBC News, Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and, ultimately, Judith Miller of The New York Times, who testified earlier this month after spending 85 days in jail for refusing a court order that compelled her to answer questions from the grand jury.​

The reporters' testimony, focusing on discussions with I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, appears to have provided Mr. Fitzgerald with a means to corroborate or challenge the accounts provided by the White House officials about the conversations. In the case of Mr. Libby, the journalists' accounts are likely to be central to any case brought by Mr. Fitzgerald, because they have failed to substantiate Mr. Libby's initial assertion that he learned about Ms. Wilson from reporters.

Does Mr. Jehl really not know that there is a lack of clarity about Russert's situation? Perhaps he could come up to speed by reading Atrios, Reddhedd of firedoglake, Eric Boehlert, the Newsguy, or Digby.

If he prefers the main stream media, Mr. Jehl could refer to Adam Liptak of his own NY Times, appeared to be quite skeptical of the Russert "denial" when he wrote about this on July 16.

Or, if he is a truly intrepid sleuth, perhaps he could refer directly to the NBC news release explaining Tim Russert's cooperation with Fitzgerald's investigation. Folks who are willing to search high and low, or even open their eyes, will find the statement at Arianna Huffington's superb timeline of the Russert saga, and it says this:

As NBC News previously reported, Mr. Russert was not a recipient of the leak, which resulted in the public disclosure of the name and CIA employment of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
​

During the interview, Mr. Russert was asked limited questions by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about a telephone conversation initiated by Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, in early July of last year. 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. Mr. Russert said that he first learned Ms. Plame's name and her role at the CIA when he read a column written by Robert Novak later that month.

We are delighted to be reassured that Mr. Russert did not pass to Mr. Libby news of Ms. Plame's name or job description. But did he say "Wilson's wife is at the CIA"?

Mr. Jehl, your public waits!

MORE:

Since Mr. Jehl is now in the tank for Russert with Mike Isikoff and Pete Yost and John Solomon of the AP, one wonders - have all of these guys actually failed to read either some blog coverage of Russert's situation, or the original press release?

Or is this a main stream media mutual backscratching scenario - the Times will look past Russert if NBC looks past Miller and Kristof? Fox or CNN could get a great visual today - while everyone else is staking out the White House and the Washington Courthouse, they could put a camera crew outside NBC headquarters and let Russert play the perp walk. But one presumes that Fox and CNN realize that their day could come soon enough.

Thus, a code of mutual professional respect may have led to a media stalemate akin to the old Soviet-US standoff - let's say that the media version of MAD has resulted in Mutual Assured Dummification. (As an aside, the Washington Post and ABC News were quite energetic in tackling RatherGate so we know that MAD can be overcome.)

And we have seen scattered reports that one or two NY Times reporters are disappointed that their paper seemed to spend some time covering up failing to diligently report on the Judy Miller story. How do these investigative aces feel about covering for Tim?

To be fair, another possibility is that all of these people received off-the-record assurances that go beyond the original NBC press release. Well, what about the public's right to know? Some sourcing for a stronger denial would be appropriate, if that is what is going on.

Meanwhile the Times is doing a disservice to its readers, who may one day be shocked to see Russert called as a defense witness for Libby. Well, the Times readers who have not learned to check the blogs will be shocked, anyway.

And since time seems to be hanging heavy, maybe a few minutes devotion to the Russert angle could lead to some insight.

Posted by Tom Maguire on October 27, 2005

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/russert-watch-let-me-cou_b_8983.html

As I got ready to watch Meet the Press today, the question in my mind was: how will Meet the Press deal with the issue dominating the thoughts of those who care about the press this Sunday? I'm talking of course about the long-awaited "full accounting" by the New York Times of its role in the Miller case and Miller's role in Plamegate.

After all, even though the accounts, one by the Times and one by Miller herself, are full of holes, it's at least obvious that the Times has taken a big first step in trying to deal with these facts: (a) the Times is a major news outlet, (b) the Plame saga is a huge news story, and (c) one of the Times's own journalists is a participant in the story.

Well, the exact same conditions exist at NBC: Tim Russert is a participant. He was interviewed under oath by Fitzgerald. And, like Miller, he has an obligation to explain to the public just exactly what he knows as a result of his involvement in the story.

So now that Judy Miller and the New York Times have spoken (however incompletely), what about Tim Russert and NBC?

Here is how Russert handled the latest developments in Plamegate (the question is addressed to Michigan Senator Carl Levin):

"The New York Times today publishes a lengthy article about the CIA leak investigation. Judith Miller, the Times reporter, writes that she had at least three meetings with the vice president's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, in which they talked about Ambassador Joe Wilson's trip to Africa regarding uranium and also some discussions about Wilson's wife. What is your reaction?"

That's it. Not a single mention of his own conversation with Libby. What does NBC think about this? As Judith Miller herself might say, "I don't know."

So I thought I would put together what is in the public domain in the hope that Russert might be moved to fill in the blanks.

May 21, 2004
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.

June 4, 2004
NBC files motion to quash the subpoena.

July 20, 2004
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.)

August 7, 2004
Russert interviewed under oath by Fitzgerald.

Aug 9, 2004
NBC releases statement 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."

July 17, 2005
Russert does an entire Meet the Press on Plamegate with Matt Cooper, Ken Mehlman, John Podesta, Bob Woodward, and others. He makes no reference whatsoever to his involvement in the affair. Harry Shearer, in HuffPost's Russert Watch, writes about the huge elephant "in the studio that went unnoticed for the full hour... Like Matt Cooper, Russert had testified to the grand jury on the Plame affair, yet at no point during the interview did the salient fact sally forth to the viewer. The pretense was uninvolved journalist interviewing involved participant: the reality was one pea in the pod interviewing a fellow pea."

July 18, 2005
Russert goes on the Today show to describe the highlights of his July 17, 2005 Meet the Press show. Neither Matt Lauer nor Katie Couric ask him about his involvement, nor does he volunteer anything.

July 22, 2005
Bloomberg News reports that Libby told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of Plame from Russert.

July 23, 2005
Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei write in the Washington Post that "Libby has testified that he learned about Plame from NBC correspondent Tim Russert, according to a source who spoke with The Washington Post some months ago."

July 24, 2005
Mike Isikoff writes in Newsweek that "A deal that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald cut last year for NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert's testimony may shed light on the emerging White House defense in the Valerie Plame leak case. ... The deal was not, as many assumed, for Russert's testimony about what Libby told him: it focused on what Russert told Libby. ... This now appears significant: in pursuing Russert's testimony, Fitzgerald was testing statements by White House aides -- reportedly including Libby -- that they learned about Wilson's wife from reporters, not classified documents."

July 24, 2005
Here is how Russert introduces the subject of Plamegate -- and himself -- during Meet the Press's roundtable:

RUSSERT: What we know so far is that in terms of journalists, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, Russert of NBC, Matt Cooper of TIME magazine have all testified, either in deposition or before the grand jury. We assume Robert Novak has testified because Judy Miller of The Times who didn't testify is in jail. And there's been numerous newspaper reports that there's a difference between the testimony of some of the reporters and Scooter Libby of Vice President Cheney's office and Karl Rove of President Bush's office. Bill Safire, what do we make of all this?

As Harry Shearer put it in HuffPost's Russert Watch: "Russert referred to himself in the third person, as if he were suddenly channeling Bob Dole. Harry Shearer likes that."

And then there was this truly odd exchange:

RUSSERT: There has to be an original source, somebody.

GREGORY: Yes.

TOTENBERG: Right.

RUSSERT: Even if it came from a reporter...

GREGORY: Right.

RUSSERT: ...the reporter got it from someplace.

TOTENBERG: Right. And...

RUSSERT: But I was asked what I said. I did not know.

He did not know what he said? He did not know her name? He did not know she was a covert operative? What we, the public, know is that we don't know what Russert told Fitzgerald during his testimony. Nor do we know why we don't know. And Russert still has to explain why his viewers don't deserve to know.

Of course, he may just feel he doesn't have the time to devote to this on Meet the Press. How could he take up any valuable real estate with an explanation of his own involvement in the biggest media story of the day when there are important exchanges to be had, like this one with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?

RUSSERT: Before you go, I'd like to read something from The Washington Times. Headline: "Americans for Rice, a group that hopes to draft Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a presidential candidate in 2008, has paid for a 60-second ad to run in Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday night during ABC's 'Commander in Chief,' a new show about a female president of the United States. Iowa, of course, traditionally holds the first presidential contest, a caucus system. The same ad appeared in New Hampshire...during the Sept. 27 broadcast of 'Commander in Chief.' New Hampshire, of course, traditionally holds the first presidential primary."

Would you accept a position on the Republican ticket in 2008?

RICE: Tim, I'm flattered that people think of me in that way, but I think it was on your show that I said I don't know how many ways to say no. I really am -- I'm not somebody who wants to run for office, haven't ever run for anything. I don't think I ever ran for high school president. And I think I'm doing what I need to do, which is to try and promote American foreign policy and American interests, the president's democracy agenda at an extraordinary time. And to the degree that I can do that across the world, that's what I'd better keep doing.

RUSSERT: So you absolutely will not accept a position on the ticket in 2008?

RICE: Tim, I don't see it--I don't know how many ways to say no.

RUSSERT: So no?

RICE: Tim, I don't know how many ways to tell people that this--I have no interest in being a candidate for anything.

RUSSERT: Well, but no interest is different than no, absolutely no.

RICE: No.

RUSSERT: Should they stop running that ad?

RICE: Tim, again, I appreciate and I'm flattered that people think of me in those terms, but it's not what I want to do with my life. It's not what I'm going to do with my life.

RUSSERT: Secretary Rice, thanks very much.

(Two other interesting Russert-Rice exchanges, via Pre$$titutes and Crooks & Liars.)

I'm sure Tim would just love to tell us about his testimony, but every week there's a new person on the show, and whenever there's a new person on the show, it's apparently mandatory that Tim ask his hard-hitting "Are you going to run for president?" question. By now, it's as much of a “Tim thing” as those bow ties are a “Tucker Carlson thing.” What would Tim be without the "Are you going to run in the next presidential election" question? Sure, it's never been answered, nor has the inevitable non-answer to it ever been in the slightest revealing of anything, but it's Tim's "thing."

Will NBC at least make Russert explain why he won't explain?

Who knows? Right now, like Secretary Rice, he just doesn't "know how many ways to say no."

 

[Annie]

http://www.slate.com/id/2129234/&#cave

The Mystery of the NBC Zombies!
Plus--Has Russert Caved?
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Sunday, Nov. 6, 2005, at 2:14 PM ET

The Mystery of the NBC Zombies: When you think about it, isn't it a bit incredible that NBC could go through an entire Meet the Press episode about the Libby case, and a whole CNBC show, and innumerable newscasts, telling its viewers that in a crucial conversation Libby had called NBC's Tim Russert

"complaining about a report he had been watching on MSNBC"

without, as far as I can see, telling its viewers the extremely relevant information that the MSNBC report in question was about Joseph Wilson and his trip to Niger, if that's in fact what it was about (something that the NYT, among others, has suggested)? If it was about Wilson, after all, that makes it much more plausible that Libby and Russert at least came close to talking about Wilson's wife's role in arranging the Niger trip. ...

It's not that NBC's "reporters" aren't telling the whole story. They aren't even telling the minimal, basic gist of the story that others are telling. It's getting cult-like and creepy!**

Why would NBC keep its viewers in the dark--letting them think that maybe Libby was calling to complain about a report on global warming? Possible answers: a) They're worried they might encourage early challenges to Russert's credibility; b) They're hiding something; Or c) If press accounts make Russert seem even more embroiled in the Wilson/Libby case than he is now, he will inevitably have to give up his perch as "neutral" moderator of Meet the Press, at least temporarily? ( I don't think he should have to give it up--it makes for better TV if he's a player! But there would be pressure for him to do so.) ... kf thinks: (b)!

**-- Even on the cable Abrams Report, you found NBC's Kelly O'Donnell--in the course of asking a question--intoning, robot-like, the official Clintonian NBC half-denial about "Tim Russert, who testified that he did not know Plame`s name or that she was an operative ...." (Why is this Clintonian? Because it inexplicably and conspicuously leaves open the possibility that without knowing Plame's name Russert knew that "Wilson's wife" worked in some capacity at the CIA.) 10:22 P.M. link

For Plame Obsessives Only: According to a HuffPo item by my brother Steve, Tim Russert claimed on Meet the Press last Sunday "that on August 7th, the night of his testimony, he reported on NBC the sum and substance of his testimony." My brother is correct. What did Russert say on August 7? Was it a full report or another strangely Clintonian efffort? Plamers want to know! But the transcript of that Nightly News broadcast is mysteriously missing from NEXIS. (It was a Saturday evening, but the other Saturday Nightly News broadcasts are in NEXIS. Only this one is missing!) If anyone has an accurate transcript of that August 7 broadcast, please send it. ... P.S.: I know Russert quoted from the August 7 show on last Sunday's Meet. But there were ellipses! ... P.P.S.: Russert also apparently misstated the crucial date. It was August 7, 2004, not 2003. Would a seasoned professional like Russert have made that mistake by accident? I have started to bolt my door. .. Update: Got it. (Thanks to JT and Factiva). ...

Buried Lede--What was in the ellipsis: It turns out that what Russert left out, when he read the transcript of John Seigenthaler's August 7, 2004 newscast on last Sunday's Meet, is the following half-sentence:

"... and was not asked questions that required him to disclose information provided in confidence."

Hmm. Does that mean this half-sentence is no longer operative? That Russert has now, in fact, given (or agreed to give) the special prosecutor "information provided in confidence," violating whatever promise to Libby he had previously asserted? (Specifically, he might have told Fitzgerald what Libby told him as well as what he told Libby.**) ...

That could explain why Russert made a point of telling Brian Williams on the 10/28 Nightly News, regarding Libby,

Well, Brian, he called me as a viewer, not as source. I'm the Washington bureau chief. He called to complain about a report that he had watched on a cable-owned station of NBC. ... [Emph. added]

Has Russert, under pressure from Fitzgerald, reclassified Libby as a "viewer," with the result that there was no information "provided in confidence"? And isn't that a bit of a scam on Libby? Russert obviously initially thought there was some promise of confidentiality. ...

**: Russert's posture, in his October 29 CNBC show, was that he only told the special prosecutor his side of the conversation, presumably in order to honor the confidentiality promise.

WILLIAMS: But that was the deal you worked out with him, that you would only testify about, in essence, what someone would have heard standing in your office on your end of the telephone call, and you wouldn't say...

RUSSERT: Right. And...

WILLIAMS: ...what he said to you?

It's this once-trumpeted limitation on Russert's testimony that--his ellipsis suggests--might now have quietly been dropped. ... 1:11 P.M.