For the history rewriters. Russert did everything but go to jail to avoid testifying against Libby

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901745.html

Russert Resisted Testifying on Leak

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; Page A05

Lawyers for NBC News reporter Tim Russert suspected in the spring of 2004 that his testimony could snare Vice President Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in a lie and Russert resisted testifying at the time about private conversations with Libby, according to court papers released yesterday.

Russert was aware that a special prosecutor probing the leak of a CIA operative's name knew of his summer 2003 telephone conversation with Libby, and that Libby had released him from any promise of confidentiality. But Russert, the Washington bureau chief for NBC News and host of "Meet the Press," and his attorneys argued in previously sealed court filings in June 2004 that he should not have to tell a grand jury about that conversation, because it would harm Russert's relationship with other sources.

[Taverner]

1. Sorry - journalists have to protect their sources

I don't blame him - I blame Bush and Cheney.

[yourout]

2. When your source is complicit in committing treason protection goes out the window.

[crickets]

7. Thank you. I'm all for journalists protecting their sources, but there's a limit.

Under certain circumstances, there's a point where you have to choose which is more important: your sources or your country. Geez. Whoulda thunk it wasn't a no-brainer?

[NNN0LHI]

3. Libby told Fitzgerald that Russert gave Plames name to him which was a lie

And Russert wanted to avoid testifying to that. He wanted to let Libby get away with the lie.

What does that have to do with sources?

Don

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. Agreed

Russert's concern was well-placed and professional. I'd have done the same thing.

[mzmolly]

8. Indeed. Watching or reading "All The Presidents Men" might be a good refresher for some?

:shrug:

[bluestateguy]

5. Any other reporter would have done the same thing

Reporters will go to the mat to not be forced to cough up their sources. I don't like anonymous source journalism, but I don't feel comfortable with courts forcing the media to reveal sources either.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Why is this so hard for some to understand?

Libby told Fitzgerald that Russert was the one who disclosed Valerie Plames identity to him which was a lie.

Libby was attempting to use Russert as his alibi.

In fact Russert did not disclose this information to Libby. Cheney did. And then Russert did his best to allow Libby get away with this scam.

What does that have to do with protecting confidential sources?

Don

[YankmeCrankme]

9. Don, I appreciate your tenacity. Maybe, people will see accept he wasn't doing anything grand.

I think he just didn't want to hurt his relationship with the power brokers.

[Taverner]

10. He wasn't, but he did have to protect his source

Even if the source tries to do you in.

Its a journalistic ethic.

Rather had to go down with his source too.

[YankmeCrankme]

13. His source for what?

Libby said Russert gave him the information about Plame. He didn't, so why protect Libby. Libby wasn't a "source" on this, he was using Russert as an alibi. I don't think you have to protect a "source" using you as an alibi.

[sandnsea]

11. Because if Libby was telling the truth

and Wilson were lying, then it would have been a completely different story and Russert would have been right to protect his source. I see Russert's point, but when you've got criminals in the White House, then your journalistic responsibility switches, it seems to me. That's the part the journalists seemed to miss. They got caught up in the concept that if there are 2 sides, one has to be telling the truth or both are telling parts of the truth. It never occurred to him both sides could be wrong, or that elected officials could be as maliciously wrong as this White House is.

[gratuitous]

14. That's it: When your source is lying to you . . .

The First Amendment is not a mutual suicide pact. When your source is lying to you, you burn the source. When your source is lying to you to cover up his own criminal activity, you burn the source. In this instance, Russert was more concerned about his pals and his connections than he was in the welfare of the country.

If we were capable of being shocked anymore, Russert's sworn testimony that his default setting when he made or took a call was "off the record." This was generally not known to the public, but was clearly something known, treasured, and depended upon by the likes of Scooter Libby and other criminals with their bloody mitts on the levers of power. They knew that for a dry run, or a father confessor, or a convenient outlet for their criminal bile, Tim Russert was a ready and eager receptacle.

Did Russert ask tough questions? From time to time. Did he follow up on any bald-faced lie that was told to his face? Rarely. I don't know if he counted on his audience to be as in the know and inside the Beltway as he was, but when a public official went on his program, the official knew they could say anything and probably get away with it. That is, if the official was wealthy and powerful enough. Russert could be rough on an assistant to the undersecretary of the subdepartment of the adjutant; but the real power players knew his program was a safe harbor.

He could comfort the afflicted when it suited him. But afflicting the comfortable wasn't in his journalistic vocabulary.

[countryjake]

15. It has nothing to do with a reporter protecting sources...

do you at least get that now?

[countryjake]

12. Thank you!

Russert -- Why did Libby lie about a conversation with Russert?
Sun Oct-30-05
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5224087&mesg_id=5224087