part of the trouble i'm having with this whole trial is the "esoterica" aspect of it: at times, it doesn't seem at all clear exactly wtf libby is being tried for, and why this is important.

One aspect I wish we knew more about was Novak.  Novak did not put up a fight.  It should also be clear that Novak was sympathetic to Rove/Libby and not to Armitage.  It is also known that FBI suspected Rove and Novak of coordinating a cover story.

The jurors seemed restless and uninterested throughout Wells' cross-examination of Russert,

From Neil Lewis of the Times:

[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.

From the post:

Even if she did know about Joseph Wilson's wife, which she denies, there's no evidence she told Tim Russert, who then told Scooter Libby. It's far too speculative.

All the ruminations I see on the web that Cheney ordered the Plame outing must drive you to distraction, then, seeing as how they are speculative and lack evidence.

From the FDL:

It's hard to know where the defense plans to go -- at times they seem to be claiming that Russert had a bad memory, at others that he was lying to cover his ass...

If the jury entertains reasonable doubt as to whether Russert is a liar with a bad memory, Mission Accomplished.

Actually, he put on quite a show - apparently he had two meetings with the FBI but only remembers one?  How many FBI meetings has he had in his life, anyway?

And he allowed NBC to submit a false affidavit to the court?

Well, he is under oath now, so its all good.

Personally, I can think of reasons for him to lie in about five seconds.  Actually, I can think of five million reasons a year for him to lie - if he had told the truth in 2003/4, he might have chiiled his sources and his newsroom, so he offered equivocal testimony with wiggle room to exit.

To his surprise, this case went to trial, and now if he 'fesses up that he did talk about Wilson's wife, he really will be out of a job - hard to see how he keeps it if he misled the grand jury and let the Libby indictment hang out there for over a year.

True?  Who knows, other than Russert and Libby (and they may have forgotten.)

Reasonable doubt?  Why not?

Set against that, no one can explain how the addition of Russert into the mix helped Libby's story.  Libby told the FBI that Rove told him on the 10th that Novak had the story; Libby told Rove (he says) that he told Rove about Russert.

Fine - take Russert out of it.  Liiby's new story is, Rove reminded me on the 10th when he told me about Novak; then I leaked to Cooper and Miller.

That works just as well, and leaves Russert out (yes, I am aware of the other problems with that story).  My point is, what did Russert add to Libby's story other than a chance to get busted?

So - Libby had no reason we can think of to drag Russert into his alibi.

Russert has plenty of reasons to stick to whatever story he originally told.

You think the jury should believe the guy with a motive to lie, who has already lied to a judge on this case?  Or is there reasonable doubt on the Russert counts?

(Obviously, Libby could still get convicted on other testimony; with or without Russert, a reminder from Rove on the 10th can't explain his chat with Ari on the 7th.)

As to Andrea Mitchell - she has the same "keep the job" incentive to continue Tim's cover up.  

I think the jury ought to see her demeanor as she tells her story, and I think she ought to look Libby in the face if her story is going to help send him to jail.

I also think there is a decent chance she and Russert are engaged in a cover-up.  Do I "know" this?  Of course not.

1.  Tim Russert, about whom you know nothing;

2.  Bob Novak, who does talk to you sometimes;

3.  Judy Miller, also a sometime contact.

Or, if he is too much of a gentleman, why not blame Novak?

Or David Sanger of the Times, who talked to him in early July?

Or Pincus, who had talked to him and had even written that he had received a Plame leak before Libby testified?  Why not say, "Pincus told me" and play he-said/he-said?

Instead, of all the reporters in all the gin joints in all the world he picks Russert.

And by uncanny coincidence, not one but two of Russert's colleagues may have gotten a Plame leak.

As to Libby's overarching story - I was remainded/learned on the 10th - obviously there is evidence that the story is, hmm, inconsistent with reality, since Ari Fleischer claims he talked to Libby about Plame on the 7.

And if I were a juror I would certainly weigh that a guy who was confused/lying about when he learned about Plame might be confused/lying about Russert.

But... evidence that Libby knew of Plame before talking to Russert is not evidence that Russert did not talk about Wilson's wife in some context - it is evidence that Libby's memory/honesty is shaky.

And we have plenty of evidence that Russert's memory/honesty is shaky - he can't remember if he told his own boss about the FBI interview?

So - on the specific question of whether Russert mentioned Wilson's wife to Libby, we have no evidence either way - neither side has contemporaneous notes, emails, witnesses, etc.