To Dream The Impossible Dream

Friday's Libby story as posted early on washingtonpost.com has moved up in the world, from today's page 4 to tomorrow's page 3. But coverage by Amy Goldstein and Carol Leonnig remains locked in yesterday's amber, where Tim Russert's impossible remains undisturbed by impertinent contradictory evidence. From Friday's Prosecution Rests Case In Libby Trial:

The prosecution rested after one of Libby's attorneys spent hours yesterday hammering the ethics, memory and motives of Russert, potentially the government's most damaging witness. As the grand finale in the prosecution's effort to prove that the vice president's former chief of staff lied to investigators about his role in the leak, Russert told jurors it was "impossible" that he had disclosed Plame's identity to Libby, as Libby told FBI agents and a federal grand jury.

The Plame-O-Verse was already writing 30 hours ago about Libby attorney Ted Wells pushing Russert about just that point, as Clarice Feldman noted:

Wells established that (a) the FBI report of his conversations (they say he had two, he only recalls one) made far closer in time to the event indicate he conceded that Ms. Wilson's name may have come up in their conversation though he earlier discounted that as "impossible"

Russert doesn't remember it that way. Worse, Leonnig and Goldstein don't remember anything about this episode at all--either yesterday or today. We do get The prosecution rested after one of Libby's attorneys spent hours yesterday hammering the ethics, memory and motives of Russert, but that's about as close as we get to the FBI report. This is the Washington Post's version of community journalism, where reporters throw out enticing hints about breaking news and readers are invited to write the rest of the story.

I accept the invitation. Here's another Post-free gem, taken from live trial-blogging at Firedoglake (W is attorney Ted Wells, T, Tim Russert):

W: You don't remember talking about this on Today show?

T: I appear on Today show several times a week.

W: How many times do you appear on the Today show to discuss possible indictment of chief of staff of VP, in a case where you were involved — first time in your life, right?

T: Yes.

W: So you don't recall

T: No. I do recall watching (Fitzgerald) news conference and discussing it with Brian Williams.  (is shown Today show transcript) I don't recall this, sorry.

W: You read NY Times every day, right?  Washington Post? 

T: Yes.

There's your problem! But I digress:

W: Fair to say if they had stories saying Libby was to be indicted, you would have read that?

T: Yes.

W: (shows news stories) Does this refresh your memory, is it fair to say you were aware of stories saying Libby would have been indicted?

T: I may well have been.

W: Given your personal involvement… you have no recollection of that day?

T: No, I said I remember news conf and going on air with Brian Williams

W: Don't recall Today show?

T: No.

W: Don't recall Imus show?

T: No.

Wells asks to approach the judge.  Sidebar.  It's 2:02.

W: Do you remember saying to Katie Couric about the indictment, "It's huge… first time in 130 years"?

T: No, I don't question that I said it, but I just don't remember.

W: Do you have a bad memory?

T: No.

Ohhhhh, If I had a hammer..... It's one thing to vaguely talk about hammering witnesses on memory, and another to document that Russert has impressive gaps in recall about important events. And Leonnig and Goldstein come that close to... nailing it, citing the first-time-in-130-years quote but veering away from memory lapses to contentions about Russert disliking Libby. And if I can pound this into the 2 X 4 of polemics, it matters because a big part of Libby's defense is that he mis-remembered who said what to whom, when.

I hope that's clear now.

Leonnig and Goldstein do contrast Russert's demeanor on the stand with his "giddy" appearance on the Don Imus show when they were both talking about "Christmas Eve" as indictments were imminent, so we'll take that bone. Then there's this:

Wells also pressed Russert to try to illustrate that he had a flawed memory...

Try as you may! Only participating Washington Post Kommunity Klub members can find the secret clues!

Update: New posts by Tom Maguire and Clarice Feldman showing how Russert grilled Robert Novak about remaining silent about his role and not fighting the subpoenas--which look a bit less inspiring now that we know Russert immediately talked to the FBI about his own role, not that we knew about that until recently. And the funny thing is, those two posts make absolutely no sense if all you have in front of you is the Washington Post.

I'm telling you, Kommunity Klub, this can be marketed, let's talk royalties.

Update Deux: Greetings fellow Just One Minute Plamiac Obsessives, and thanks to Tom Maguire for the link. Let me also point you to other posts on the topic this week, Kurtz on Kurtz but especially You Keep Missing The Target, which chronicles one of the longest-running incidents of misreporting that I've tracked, namely the canard that Joe Wilson didn't find any signs of Iraq seeking uranium in Niger. I hereby withdraw any unkind things I ever wrote about ombudsman Deborah Howell and thank her for not correcting it. I'll also have at least a brief snark up in a few minutes--just some ice cream to end the week.

Comments

[Sue]

Just thinking aloud here, but would Tom have noticed you had H&R not brought you so much publicity? ::grin:: Just sayin'...

Good post, btw.

[Dan S]

Sue,

Sorry to undermine your argument, but it was Thread Herder who focused TM's eagle eye on Chris's blog!

Gotta keep these puppets straight!

[Christopher Fotos]

Oh sure. Take the side of the Thread Herder Scythe of Doom.

[Dan S]

Sorry, casual visitors, inscyther joke.

[kim]

Illuminatingly inscythive.
================

[topsecretkk9]

Sorry, a littel OT Chris, but I thought you might like to know about this (this is REALLY pretty bad)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html

Correction to This Article A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

More here
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/09/wapo-quasi-retracts-page-one-story-about-feith-iraqaq-intel/

[kim]

Hang him from the highest tree. Levin, whoever promoted Joe Wilson, and whoever sandbagged the SSCI about the memo starting Joe to Niger are examples of traitors.
=============================

[kim]

And Jane's right; people are dying because of this disinformation.

Wilson Lied, People are still Dying.
=====================

[kim]

It may be 'Who Lost Iraq'? I hope it's not 'Who lost the Middleast?
=====================================