MSNBC/Newsweek-Russert deal, what it reveals

[adarling]

Found this to be very interesting, they remind me of drowning rats trying to do whatever they can from sinking-

Aug. 1 issue - 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 agreement between Fitzgerald and NBC avoided a court fight over a subpoena for Russert's testimony about his July 2003 talk with Dick Cheney's top aide, Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The deal was not, as many assumed, for Russert's testimony about what Libby told him: it focused on what Russert told Libby. An NBC statement last year said Russert did not know of Plame, wife of ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, or that she worked at the CIA, and "he did not provide that information to Libby."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8682500/site/newsweek/

here is the rest of the story

[bushisanidiot]

1. The white house trying to blame the reporters for this is laughable

uh.. reporters can't get classified documents through the freedom of information act. someone from WITHIN the white house had to out her to a reporter for the reporters to know about her.

fucking DUH!!

Rove should be fired for saying Plame was "fair game" regardless of whether or not he was the idiot who outed her. He actively encouraged her public outing.. he fucking ENCOURAGED treasonous activity!!

[JDPriestly]

2. This is like differential diagnosis or the process of elimination.

The prosecutor is trying to find out whether Rove, et al. learned about Plame from some source that was not privy to classified information. His first step is to determine whether the witnesses, i.e., reporters had authorized access to classified information about Plame. If he determines they did not had such access, he asks them what they told Rove. He does not need to know what Rove told them at this point. If the prosecutor is using this tactic, it would suggest that Rove claimed he learned about Plame from some source other than a person with authorized access to classified information but can't remember who it was.

This is analogous to the suspect in a murder investigation who says, I couldn't have committed the murder because I was drinking a beer at Joe's Bar at the time of the crime. The police ask him, who were you drinking with? Who saw you at Joe's Bar? The guy says I don't remember. The officer finds out who else was at Joe's Bar on the night of the murder and asks each of them whether they remember seeing the suspect at the bar. If no one does, chances are the suspect wasn't there.

Although the burden of producing the evidence of the crime is on the prosecutor, the burden of producing evidence of an alibi is on the suspect. If Rove gave a sort of alibi, he has to be able to prove that his alibi is true. The prosecutor still has to prove the elements of the crime, but if Rove's defense is that he learned about Plame from a journalist, Rove will have to produce evidence on that. But, mind you, the prosecutor's burden of proof is the heavy one in this.

Remember OJ. The jury did not think that the prosecutor had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ killed his wife even though OJ didn't have a strong alibi and seemed to be the most likely killer. The prosecutor seems to be doing a really good job here of tracing down every possible alternative source for the leak. That's wise.