Kurtz on Kurtz

Maybe Howard Kurtz was focused on his own distant role in the cross-examination of Tim Russert yesterday, having covered Russert's memory lapse about a couple of angry phone calls he made to a Buffalo reporter. Whatever the reason, we get this in Tim Russert, on the Uncomfortable Side of the Question:

Russert's most uncomfortable moments involved a 2004 Washington Post Magazine interview, which I conducted, in which he made an error. Russert said then that he challenged the accuracy of a Buffalo News columnist who had sharply criticized him for pressing Hillary Rodham Clinton, during a 2000 Senate debate that he moderated, about her remarks on the Monica Lewinsky uproar. Russert said in the interview that he had not called the columnist, Mark Sommer, to complain, but when Sommer said he had received two angry calls, Russert acknowledged to The Post: "I just plain didn't remember it."

Wells was using the incident to show that Russert's memory on the Libby call might be faulty as well, but the witness seemed more interested in defending his debate performance....

Instead of this, part of Clarice Feldman's summary of the cross-examination:

...while making an impassioned plea for the right of reporters to protect the confidentiality of sources, he'd already twice discussed the Libby exchanges with the FBI and failed to disclose that to the Court or the public...

This is serious. Libby's attorney, Ted Wells, is accusing Tim Russert of having filed a false affidavit to the court. This was during pre-trial maneuvers, attempting to quash a subpoena forcing Russert to testify before a grand jury. Russert's affidavit said relating his conversation with Libby would have compromised confidentiality--any source's expectation that private off-the-record discussion would remain so. But Russert had already discussed the conversation with a separate FBI investigator, apparently without much prodding.

So it's unclear how Kurtz can write Russert emerged relatively unscathed yesterday, except for a previously acknowledged memory lapse about a phone call unrelated to the Libby case. As Lance Dutson of Maine Web Report noted a few minutes ago, Russert continues to be, what's the word, scathed on this point today.

[Wells] So you said to Judge Hogan in affidavit- so to even disclose the fact that the conversation occurred would be problematic. Is it in the affidavit that you spoke with the FBI agent?
Wells tries to get him to answer yes or no. Russert starts saying how the conversation was different, prosecutor tries to object, overruled.

Did you disclose in the affidavit that you had the FBI agent conversation and disclosed the fact of the communication with Libby?
no

did you disclose in the affidavit that you had disclosed the contents of the Libby call with FBI?
objection overruled

Russert goes on an extended answer, Wells presses for yes or no, RUssert is insistent to answer to the best of his abilities. He continues to say that the FBI conversation was from the agent to Russert, and not the other way around.

Wells asks him again if he disclosed the conversation in the affidavit.
No.

Some commenter on the internets recently said that the way big media covers the news has become a "barrier to understanding." Yes.

Update: Tom Maguire at Just One Minute--whom you're reading anyway if you care about this--tries to make sense of it all:

Let me point out a few dots that the defense has introduced and make some predictions about how they will attempt to connect them.  In one sentence, the defense insinuation will be that Russert cooperated with the FBI investigation and committed a firing offense by keeping that from his NBC overlords; he also misled the FBI and the grand jury in order to minimize his own role in this case.

Please keep in mind - I am attempting to predict defense strategy, not ascertain "the truth"...

"Read it all"

Update: It can be done--via Clarice over in the Just One Minute thread, AP's Matt Apuzzo (somebody please forward this to the Washington Post):

WASHINGTON (AP) - To show jurors that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is believable, attorneys for the former White House aide are trying to undercut the credibility of reporters from some of the nation's largest media outlets....

Defense attorney Theodore Wells spent more than two hours cross-examining Russert. Wells questioned him 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.

Wells also pressed Russert to explain why he fought a government subpoena to give a deposition in the investigation, even though he had already willingly told his version of events to an FBI agent. Either Russert must have either betrayed his journalism principles with that FBI conversation or overstated their importance when he challenged them in court, Wells said

Comments

[kim]

Kurtz on MTP this Sunday.
==============