Plamegate Flashback: Russert Seeing 'Santa Claus' In Libby Indictment

Photo of Tim Graham.

In the Scooter Libby trial, the jury heard a tape of NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert sounding very much like a liberal Democrat expressing glee at approaching indictments in the Plamegate prosecution of Patrick Fitzgerald on MSNBC's Imus in the Morning on October 28, 2005 (in the 8:30 half hour). He said "Santa Claus is coming tomorrow." MRC's Mike Rule dug out the tape to give people outside the courtroom some of the flavor of that giddy conversation: 

Imus: "Here's somebody, if this person who we're going to talk to now doesn't know [who will be indicted in the CIA leak case, or even if indictments are coming] nobody knows. The Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News and the host of 'Meet the Press' Tim Russert. Good morning Mr. Russert."  

Russert: "Good morning Mr. Imus." 

Imus: "So we don't know anything, do we?"

Russert: "Well, I'm just reading this alert here, the Commerce Department says the economy grew by 3.8% in the third quarter."

Imus: "<laughter> And we've been told all morning--"

Russert: "This is an unfolding story, Don, on your watch. You can piece together these different elements of the puzzle. We, too, expect some major developments today. Look, the one word that really intrigued us last night was, 'and prepare yourself for some surprises.'"

Imus: "Who did that come from?"

Russert: "Sources, where else? <Imus and Russert laughter>

Russert: "But I mean, it was like Christmas Eve here last night. You know, Santa Claus is coming tomorrow. Surprises! What's going to be under the tree? But we do expect that this will unfold. Probably in the next hour or two hours, we'll have some indications of where it's headed, and we do expect to hear from Patrick Fitzgerald early this afternoon." 

Imus: "Now see, that's what I'm talking about folks. That's a more responsible, genuine assessment of where we are, what we just got from Tim Russert, than all the jive you're going to get on all these other channels and all these other worthless announcements that people hand you and stuff. I mean, so, it's not like we're sucking up to Russert, but that's why you would go to Russert because you're not going to get your chain jerked after that Luke incident." 

Russert: "Exactly right."

Imus: "I'm sorry."

Russert: "No, go ahead, it's fair, let's play it again. But the interesting thing about all this is that if we had said six months ago that the Vice President's chief of staff or that the President's chief political counsel were prime candidates for indictment, people would begoing crazy. Now that this has played out all week, people are saying, 'oh, just one,' as if there's this expectation. This has happened only one other time in your lifetime, Don, that a sitting White House official was indicted."

Imus: "Okay, when was that?"

Russert: "1875. Ulysses S. Grant, a fellow by the name of Orville Babcock."

Yes, that's very interesting, the excitement at getting Bushies put on trial. Hurray! Is there two inches of distance between Russert and the Daily Kos? Not in this excerpt. Can you imagine Tim Russert sitting on Santa's lap for Whitewater indictments? No. Ken Starr didn't seem too Santa-like in liberal eyes.   

NB's Michael M. Bates hammered Russert on his historical sense of glee. MSNBC's own research on White House-related indictments showed that often indictments came days or months after resignations. It was common for the resignation to proceed the indictment. But some officials -- not on the White House staff, but within the administration -- were indicted in office, such as Reagan's labor secretary Ray Donovan, indicted in office in 1984. It's quite obvious that Russert wanted to hype the importance of the indictment and the forthcoming trial by going back to the Grant administration.

Left out of this conjecture: what if the indictment accomplishes nothing but besmirching a man's reputation? (See Ray Donovan, who asked to which office he should go to get his reputation back. Clearly, the media doesn't really care who gets hurt when there's partisan points to be scored.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hope springs eternal in the

Hope springs eternal in the Liberal's breast.

As the worm now turns.....Med

As the worm now turns.....

Media Figures May Be Reluctant Defense Witnesses in Libby Case

Defense Exhibit 1972, a tape-recorded interview from the "Imus in the Morning" radio show, is another of those revealing moments in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"So . . . what happened?" radio host Don Imus asks NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell about her confusing reporting on an undercover CIA officer. "Were you drunk?"

"I obviously screwed up," Mitchell responds in the exchange, which Libby's defense hopes to play for the jury in coming days. "I guess I was drunk," she jokes.

Just when you thought it was impossible for more harm to come to the national news media's reputation, the defense in the trial of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff is about to present its case.

Now the reporters Libby spoke to -- and some he did not -- are unhappily embroiled in the trial as witnesses for both sides.

This past week, a pillar of broadcast news -- Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief for NBC News -- was heard chortling on the air on Oct. 28, 2005, about the possibility that Bush administration officials would be indicted that day. That interview, also with Imus, helped the defense suggest that Russert, a star witness for the prosecution, may have held a grudge against Libby.

Libby's defense argued that Mitchell may have told Russert -- who testified for two days last week -- about the CIA operative but later wanted to back away from her assertion of knowledge. If she did know the information, they said, it would bolster Libby's contention that he learned about Plame's identity in a July 10, 2003, telephone call with Russert.

Russert said that was not possible because he did not hear of Plame until several days later.

"Now it turns out his right-hand person, Andrea Mitchell, in October 2003 has said something that totally blows up his core statement that he didn't know about the wife," defense attorney Theodore Wells Jr. told U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton in arguing to play the Mitchell tape for the jury. "He has admitted that if she knew, he knew, and the whole team would have known."

Stinkin' liars one and all.....integrity flies out the window when core political beliefs are in play....each and every day of the week.....

Nowhere to Run....Nowhere To Hide.....

I didn't see Imus, but I reme

I didn't see Imus, but I remember Tim talking to Chris Matthews and saying it was going to be like Christmas.  Both of them had smirks on their faces.    If I couldn't be the one to slap the smirk off their faces, I'm glad that Libby's attorneys are doing it. 

Clowns

Just once I would like to see one of these clowns validate their propaganda by naming their source.

This whole Valerie Phlame, Joe Wilson bs should prove to the biggest doubter that the msm will not stop at anything to destroy those opposed to their agenda.

Imus?

Does anyone actually listen to this cowboy wannabe buffoon anymore? His show has been crap since Billy Sol Hargus took his leave. Since he married that nut he's become a total PITA.

Tim Russert is scum

Tim Russert is willing.. nah gleefull of putting an innocent man in prison

Russert: "No, go ahead, it's

Russert: "No, go ahead, it's fair, let's play it again. But the interesting thing about all this is that if we had said six months ago that the Vice President's chief of staff or that the President's chief political counsel were prime candidates for indictment, people would begoing crazy. Now that this has played out all week, people are saying, 'oh, just one,' as if there's this expectation. This has happened only one other time in your lifetime, Don, that a sitting White House official was indicted."
They were saying that the VP and his COS would be indicted. They were drooling at the prospect.
For some interesting perspective on how this trial and the players are performing, check out Lance Dutson's blog earlier. Just a teaser from his site http://www.mainewebr...

Russert reading letter. Letter was written in June 2004, printed in paper.
“Phil Fairbanks was correct…after reviewing my files I did in fact call Mark Summer on his commentary on my performance in the Clinton/Lazio debate”

Is it correct you wrote you ‘regret the error’?
yes

Russert tries to ask questions, which he has done several times. Not offensively, but Wells stops and addresses the judge, to get Russert to stop. Judge tells him to only answer the questions, Russert nods and agrees.

There are a lot of gems in the testimony, if you have the time, patience and stomach for that sort of thing.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.