From the AP — Tim Russert feels the heat of an interview he doesn't control, namely cross examination:
Russert seemed uncomfortable at times as Libby's attorneys asked him to explain why he willingly told an FBI agent about a July 2003 conversation with Libby, then gave a sworn statement saying he would not testify about that conversation because it was confidential.
"Did you disclose in the affidavit to the court that you had already disclosed the contents of your conversation with Mr. Libby," Libby's attorneys Theodore Wells asked.
"As I've said sir ... " Russert began.
"It's a yes or no question," Wells interrupted.
"I'd like to answer it to the best of my ability," Russert said.
"This is a very simple question. Either it's in the affidavit or it's not?" Wells asked. "Did you disclose to the court that you had already communicated to the FBI the fact that you had communicated with Mr. Libby?"
"No," Russert said.
The fact is that there is, contrary to what you see on TV, no actual rule that requires that "a yes or no question" only be answered by a yes or a no. But this is largely a matter of the judge's management of questioning, and the ability of the lawyer to take control of the examination. So it looks like Ted Wells scored a point or two in this exchange.
But a lot of what defense attorneys do on cross examination generates more heat than light. They're just trying to raise reasonable doubt, of course, so that's not such a bad thing, but the enterprise they're engaged in is not necessarily about intellectual honesty. The "kitchen sink" approach is not one I use when I am cross-examining a witness, but I don't do criminal work, and I am working on a preponderance of the evidence standard in civil cases, not reasonable doubt. Again, from yesterday's questioning:
Wells has questioned Russert about other phone conversations he couldn't remember, inconsistencies between his current account and FBI notes of an agent's original interview with him, and the likelihood that he would've let such a high-ranking official off the phone without fishing for some news.
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. As to the "likelihood" or Russert "let[ting] such a high-ranking official off the phone without fishing for some news," I am sure Russert was flattered by the implication, but I don't find it all that unlikely, do you?
Well, oddly enough, Seth Stevenson at Slate sees this — and he's there, I'm not — exactly the opposite from the way I do, at least as of yesterday (and before the exchange above was reported):
Wells starts hitting Russert with a flurry of questions, hoping to impugn his memory. But Russert is utterly unflappable. I've never seen a better witness at a trial. He never gets flustered, always stays on message. No matter how complex Wells makes his inquiries, Russert's answers remain supremely straightforward. After one string of jumbly gobbledygook from Wells (implying that Russert might have known about Valerie Plame earlier than he's claiming that he did), Russert ignores all the nooks and crannies and keeps things blunt: "I did not know that she worked at the CIA. That's the simple fact. I did not know who she was, what her name was, or where she worked." I suppose appearing on national television for years, verbally jousting with pundits and presidents, is good practice for parrying a lawyer's tricky questions.
There's one place I think Wells might get some traction with the jury, though. He notes that, at the time of the phone call, the Joe Wilson trip was a "story of great national import," with the vice president's office deeply involved. And in the middle of this, Cheney's chief of staff serendipitously called up Tim Russert. Yet Russert -— dogged reporter and experienced journalist that he is —- didn't think to ask Libby a single question about Wilson while he had Libby on the line, one on one?
Stevenson's take is consistent. He really does think of Russert as a crusading, "dogged" journalist, so he thinks of Wells as not laying a glove on him except, perhaps, on the question of how such a great reporter could let Libby off the hook when they were on the phone. (Though note Mickey Kaus's take on that question from over a year ago — is Wells reading Kausfiles?) And me, I see Russert as a talented, but human, TV personality, whom you and I think of as liberal though not everyone does. I don't think his politics will affect his testimony, but it may affect how we hear it.
UPDATE: More Rorschach results here, via Kaus.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Russert / Libby axis
- The hunter becomes the hunted?
