...and Russert gets nailed on the stand. If you aren't reading Tom Maguire on this trial, then you aren't reading anything. Excerpting NYT reporter Neil Lewis from Tom's post:

[The jurors] seemed to pay close attention as Mr. Wells, known for his cross-examination skills, and Mr. Russert, a successful public communicator, went at each other for a second consecutive day.

--

Mr. Wells focused on Mr. Russert’s behavior when he was first called by an F.B.I. agent and asked about a telephone conversation he had had with Mr. Libby on July 10 or 11, 2003.

In that call, the agent told Mr. Russert that Mr. Libby had said in an interview that he first learned of the identity of the C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson, from Mr. Russert in the July 2003 conversation.

Mr. Russert told the agent that Mr. Libby’s assertion was untrue, that the issue of Ms. Wilson never came up in that conversation.

Mr. Wells, using the technique that Mr. Russert is known for as moderator of “Meet the Press,” then put up on video screens throughout the courtroom Mr. Russert’s words in an affidavit he filed later. In an effort to avoid complying with a subpoena to testify about the same subject before a grand jury, Mr. Russert swore that he could not discuss the conversation because to do so would violate his deeply held journalistic principles.

“Did you disclose in the affidavit to the court that you had already disclosed the contents of your conversation with Mr. Libby” to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Wells asked.

“As I’ve said, sir ... ,” Mr. Russert began.

“It’s a yes or no question,” Mr. Wells interrupted.

“I’d like to answer it to the best of my ability,” Mr. Russert replied.

“This is a very simple question. Either it’s in the affidavit or it’s not,” Mr. Wells said. “Did you disclose to the court that you had already communicated to the F.B.I. the fact that you had communicated with Mr. Libby?”

“No,” Mr. Russert said.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 07:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.