[Dean's World] Ron Coleman: The hunter becomes the hunted?

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Ron Coleman:
The hunter becomes the hunted?
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1170951991.shtml


   From the [1]AP -- Tim Russert feels the heat of an interview he
   doesn't control, namely cross examination:

     Russert seemed uncomfortable at times as Libby's attorneys asked
     him to explain why he willingly told an FBI agent about a July 2003
     conversation with Libby, then gave a sworn statement saying he
     would not testify about that conversation because it was
     confidential.

     "Did you disclose in the affidavit to the court that you had
     already disclosed the contents of your conversation with Mr.
     Libby," Libby's attorneys Theodore Wells asked.

     "As I've said sir ... " Russert began.

     "It's a yes or no question," Wells interrupted.

     "I'd like to answer it to the best of my ability," Russert said.

     "This is a very simple question. Either it's in the affidavit or
     it's not?" Wells asked. "Did you disclose to the court that you had
     already communicated to the FBI the fact that you had communicated
     with Mr. Libby?"

     "No," Russert said.

   The fact is that there is, contrary to what you see on TV, no actual
   rule that requires that "a yes or no question" only be answered by a
   yes or a no. But this is largely a matter of the judge's management of
   questioning, and the ability of the lawyer to take control of the
   examination. So it looks like Ted Wells scored a point or two in this
   exchange.

   But a lot of what defense attorneys do on cross examination generates
   more heat than light. They're just trying to raise reasonable doubt,
   of course, so that's not such a bad thing, but the enterprise they're
   engaged in is not necessarily about intellectual honesty. The "kitchen
   sink" approach is not one I use when I am cross-examining a witness,
   but I don't do criminal work, and I am working on a preponderance of
   the evidence standard in civil cases, not reasonable doubt. Again,
   from yesterday's questioning:

     Wells has questioned Russert 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.

   Okay, so there were conversations he couldn't remember. Okay, so there
   were inconsistencies -- evidently some less important than the one
   reported above. Most of us are "inconsistent" in recalling the past.
   As to the "likelihood" or Russert "let[ting] such a high-ranking
   official off the phone without fishing for some news," I am sure
   Russert was flattered by the implication, but I don't find it all that
   unlikely, do you?

   Well, oddly enough, [2]Seth Stevenson at Slate sees this -- and he's
   there, I'm not -- exactly the opposite way I do, at least as of
   yesterday (and before the exchange above was reported):

     Wells starts hitting Russert with a flurry of questions, hoping to
     impugn his memory. But Russert is utterly unflappable. I've never
     seen a better witness at a trial. He never gets flustered, always
     stays on message. No matter how complex Wells makes his inquiries,
     Russert's answers remain supremely straightforward. After one
     string of jumbly gobbledygook from Wells (implying that Russert
     might have known about Valerie Plame earlier than he's claiming
     that he did), Russert ignores all the nooks and crannies and keeps
     things blunt: "I did not know that she worked at the CIA. That's
     the simple fact. I did not know who she was, what her name was, or
     where she worked." I suppose appearing on national television for
     years, verbally jousting with pundits and presidents, is good
     practice for parrying a lawyer's tricky questions.

     There's one place I think Wells might get some traction with the
     jury, though. He notes that, at the time of the phone call, the Joe
     Wilson trip was a "story of great national import," with the vice
     president's office deeply involved. And in the middle of this,
     Cheney's chief of staff serendipitously called up Tim Russert. Yet
     Russert -â dogged reporter and experienced journalist that he is â-
     didn't think to ask Libby a single question about Wilson while he
     had Libby on the line, one on one?

   Stevenson's take is consistent. He really does think of Russert as a
   crusading, "dogged" journalist, so he thinks of Wells as not laying a
   glove on him except, perhaps, on the question of how such a great
   reporter could let Libby off the hook when they were on the phone.
   (Though note [3]Mickey Kaus's take on that question from over a year
   ago -- is Wells reading Kausfiles?) And me, I see Russert as a
   [4]talented, but human, TV personality, whom you and I think of as
   [5]liberal though not everyone does. I don't think his politics will
   affect his testimony, but it may affect how we hear it.

References

   1. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/08/D8N5K8FO0.html
   2. http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/
   3. http://www.slate.com/id/2129234/
   4. http://www.slate.com/id/2085153/
   5. http://newsbusters.org/node/10626