I think the question here is why did Russert first tell the FBI all about his phone call with Libby, and then get lawyers and try to fight a subpoena to appear before the grand jury. He wasn’t “protecting sources.” He had already told the FBI everything. Was he embarrassed about having talked to the FBI, when Judith Miller was fighting the subpoenas and going to jail? Did he think that he had given up his sources too easily, and that would hurt his career, so he decided to put on a show of resisting?
Okay, so there were conversations he couldn't remember. Okay, so there were inconsistencies — evidently some less important than the one reported above. Most of us are "inconsistent" in recalling the past.
That's an interesting defense of Mr. Russert. The irony, of course, is that it's pretty close to Mr. Libby's defense as well.
Martin, really I think it's a defense of almost anyone. I am not close enough to the facts of this case to know how much water it holds here, but generally speaking most of us aren't so clear on so many details -- always grist for the mill on cross examination.
Ron, I accept it as a defense. Where I see the irony is that many in Mr. Russert's profession and many of his defenders will accept it from him but not from Mr. Libby.
I'm tired of the Libby/Fitzgerald case so, I have no comment on the substance.
As for the "yes" or "no" questions by Wells, those are absolutely essential for a good cross-examination. People, like Russert, always want to explain away awkward testimony, but Yes or No questions, box them in.
A good variation of this is the O.J. Simpson civil (not criminal) trial, where Petrocelli won a $33 million verdict.
He got O.J. Simpson on the stand, and asked him only "true" or "false" questions:
1. Mr. Simpson, on the night of June 12, 1994, you went to Nicole Simpson's home in Brentwood, true or false?
2. At the home, you saw Nicole, true or false?
3. At the home, you saw Ron Goldman, true or false?
4. You suspected that they were having an affair, true or false?
5. You got angry, true or false?
6. You got a knife from your car, true or false?
7. You waited outside for them with your knife, true or false?
8. You slashed Mr. Goldman's throat, true or false?
etc, etc
Basically, he kept O.J. on the stand for nearly 8 hours or so, forcing him to say "false," over and over and over again, until the jury could see thru all his discomfort and lies.
It' s not hard to persuasively lie, if you can explain things away - the charming rogue element. But it's real hard to persuasively lie in public, over and over and over again.
A laughable case that gets more laughable every day.
Watching the press routinely misreport it is kind of weird though. The members of the working press, they really aren't very bright by nature, are they?
2.8.2007 6:10pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
That's an interesting defense of Mr. Russert. The irony, of course, is that it's pretty close to Mr. Libby's defense as well.
I also hope all that courtroom pressure shrank some poundage off Russert's too-fat ass.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
As for the "yes" or "no" questions by Wells, those are absolutely essential for a good cross-examination. People, like Russert, always want to explain away awkward testimony, but Yes or No questions, box them in.
A good variation of this is the O.J. Simpson civil (not criminal) trial, where Petrocelli won a $33 million verdict.
He got O.J. Simpson on the stand, and asked him only "true" or "false" questions:
1. Mr. Simpson, on the night of June 12, 1994, you went to Nicole Simpson's home in Brentwood, true or false?
2. At the home, you saw Nicole, true or false?
3. At the home, you saw Ron Goldman, true or false?
4. You suspected that they were having an affair, true or false?
5. You got angry, true or false?
6. You got a knife from your car, true or false?
7. You waited outside for them with your knife, true or false?
8. You slashed Mr. Goldman's throat, true or false?
etc, etc
Basically, he kept O.J. on the stand for nearly 8 hours or so, forcing him to say "false," over and over and over again, until the jury could see thru all his discomfort and lies.
It' s not hard to persuasively lie, if you can explain things away - the charming rogue element. But it's real hard to persuasively lie in public, over and over and over again.
Barnes
Watching the press routinely misreport it is kind of weird though. The members of the working press, they really aren't very bright by nature, are they?
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.