I’m going to give this instruction apply these limiting instructions. These articles have been admitted have not been admitted for truth. You may not assume that anything said in articles is true or consider anything as establishing facts.

With Cliff May, the National Review and the WSJ Editorial page involved this is a very pertinent admonition.

Why are these right-wing articles admissable–seems to be a 403 issue to me. Very concerning–some must think the WSJ to be Gospel-truth–limiting instruction or not.

Scooter may walk–esp.w/the laundry list of terror. concerns.

But may cut both ways–if so focused on briefings–how do u explain V.Plame being in center radar.

I would be sweating if my name were scooter and I was going to the big house

RUSSERT-1998: “Go into the grand jury without a lawyer, like every other American citizen, go ahead, ask me any question you want and I’ll give you an honest answer.”

WELLS: “You know that in a grand jury, lawyers are not in the room?”

RUSSERT-2007: “Didn’t know that”

Just to nitpick, Russert could be right on both counts.

In the first statement he’s saying the witness wouldn’t have a lawyer and in the second he says there are no lawyers (for anyone) in the room.

But, just because a witness has no lawyer doesn’t mean the prosecutor and his team aren’t in the GJ room, “guiding” the GJ to ask questions of a witness. Certainly, a prosecutor is a lawyer.

So, just the way Clinton nitpicked over the meaning of “IS”, so does Russert — much to the confusion and consternation and outrage of the stupid Republicans who just don’t get it.

Redshift @ 85

Well, as long as we have a break from liveblogging, I hope a small OT isn’t out of line for the Best Photo of the Day. Bush goes on a baby-kissing trip to a local YMCA to distract from the Iraq War debate, and gets photographed trying to stop a small child from making a peace sign. Check this kid’s expression, too; I love him! (via Froomkin)

Didja notice, he’s only trying to stop the littlest kid from flashing the V? The slightly bigger kids are too scary to Commander Codpiece.

That photo says it all.

RUSSERT-1998: “Go into the grand jury without a lawyer, like every other American citizen, go ahead, ask me any question you want and I’ll give you an honest answer.”

WELLS: “You know that in a grand jury, lawyers are not in the room?”

RUSSERT-2007: “Didn’t know that”

LIBBY-MONDAY: “Psst, Ari, Joe Wilson’s wife works in Counterproliferation. You should tell reporters about it, make his trip look like a boondoggle.”

RUSSERT-THURSDAY: “If you have problems with Chris Matthews’ show you need to talk to his producer.”

LIBBY-THURSDAY: “Really, Joe Wilson’s wife works for the CIA and all the reporters know it? I didn’t know!”

willytex @ 89

RUSSERT-1998: “Go into the grand jury without a lawyer, like every other American citizen, go ahead, ask me any question you want and I’ll give you an honest answer.”

WELLS: “You know that in a grand jury, lawyers are not in the room?”

RUSSERT-2007: “Didn’t know that”

And your point is? You’re citing a quote from 9 years ago – give me a break.

That Timmy got special treatment?

Furthermore, what does this have to do with his testimony that he most emphatically did not tell Libby about Wilson’s wife.

So, how did Timmy know he could go around acting like he never talked to the FBI without someone calling him on it?

Sure smacks of desperation to me.

So, you’re desperate. Apparently Timmy *forgot* what he said on Larry King. And Timmy is a lawyer? Go figure.

How much do you think the Judge will hamper the defense’s ability to raise the “Libby just forgot” defense now that Scooter is not testifying through the jury instructions. I was under the impression that the Judge commented earlier that if Scooter did not testify, there would be no faulty memory defense.

The Judge has obviously backed off from that a bit now, but there have to be some limitations placed in the jury instructions so that the jury does not engage in sheer speculation. If I were Fitz, I’d be preparing a motion for a directed verdict on that defense as insufficiently supported by competent and admissible evidence.

Also, will there be instructions designed to blunt the defense’s obvious efforts to appeal for jury nullification? The scapegoat defense is just that now that there is no evidence to support Wells’ statements during Opening.

Finally, while I understand that the 5th Amendment precludes the Govt’ from using Libby’s failure to take the stand as any inference of guilt, why can’t they take promises made by the defense during Opening and show that no such evidence was ever provided by them at trial. It seems a mighty fine line to walk to me, but then again I am only a civil litigator.

A sitting president would have to be impeached before s/he were brought to trial.

What are we waiting for?

That is an excellent question. There was a good discussion of that in last Sunday’s Book Salon w/ Elizabeth de la Vega US v Bush

sonate @ 108

Claudia @ 93:

The president can pardon anyone (except maybe himself).

Any person except for a sitting president can go through a criminal trial with or without being impeached.

A sitting president would have to be impeached before s/he were brought to trial.

So to me, the next logical step–outside of anything Fitz may have going–is for the Congress to begin impeachment hearings, based on this trial, of Cheney.

There is testimony by his COS that he authorized the leak of classified information in apparant violation of several laws and protocols ranging from misuse of security clearances to treason.

There have been assertions, but no evidence, that there was some declassification procedure in place, though the legality of that action relative to the National Security Act of 1947 is certainly suspect.

Despite Speaker Pelosi’s response when asked that the President would not be subject to impeachment proceedings, subsequent events (the trial) have made it clear that the Vice-President, at least, should have his conduct investigated.

Here’s hoping the Judiciary Committee is paying attention.

It just seems to me, if all this information were put in front of me (on the grand jury) — I’d be looking at Cheney as being the leaker. Maybe they could have gotten Rove on similar charges to Libby’s charges, but I think the whole thing belongs in Cheney’s lap.

emptywheel @ 62

Hey guys, we’re still on break. It looked like Cline was ready to go, but I guess not.

I wonder what those three CIA briefers could be doing if they weren’t sitting there. Maybe disproving the BS about Iran.

i wonder what valerie plame would be working on today if she still had a job?

Well IF she was running either the Pakistan or Iran Counter-Proliferation Operations before she was outed in 2003 it likely would have been going along far better than whoever Porter Goss appointed to replace McLaughlin put in her place.

BEFORE:

http://cayankee.blogs.com/caya…..dmits.html

AFTER:

http://regimechangeiran.blogsp…..-says.html