Jack Balkin's post on the theories of the Commander in Chief is, in my opinion, essentially incorrect. Balkin favors a view that the Commander in Chief's conduct of war is subject to specific control by the Congress. I think that is wrong, but what really troubles me about Balkin's piece is his misstatement of the contrary view - Balkin creates a cartoon theory that, one hopes, is rejected by any reasonable person:

The second conception of the President as Commander-in-Chief is that the President stands at the head of the armed forces of the United States and therefore that he is and should be entrusted with all important decisions regarding the conduct and use of the armed forces. Under this conception, Congress may not interfere with the President's use of the military (despite textual authority for doing so in Article I, section 8) because this would undermine or interfere with the Presidential chain of command. . . . The problem with the second conception of Commander-in-Chief is that it turns the Framers' principle of civilian control over the military on its head, realizing the Framers' fears in a different way. The danger now is not that the military will act independently and pressure the civilian government into capitulation but that the President will see the opportunity to use his position as head of the military to escape Congressional and judicial control; he will use control of the military and patriotic appeals to take the country into a series of misguided wars or to establish quasi-dictatorial powers.

This is a misstatement of both the contrary view of what is meant by Commander-in-Chief AND what it is the Framers feared.

Good for John Edwards. He didn't cave in to the right wing noise machine. It looks like Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister of will stay on as bloggers for the campaign.

Here's Edward's press statement, followed by statements from Amanda and Melissa:

John Edwards:

“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.”

I have an op-ed in the Washington Examiner on why Libby wants to call Cheney as a witness, particularly if Libby doesn't testify.

Tim Russert is still on the witness stand and there was lots of legal wrangling over Andrea Mitchell's statements going on. The Judge ruled this morning Russert can't be questioned about her statements.

The defense wants to call her as a witness and Fitz has filed this brief (pdf) seeking to preclude them "from eliciting testimony regarding her knowledge, prior to July 14, 2003, that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA, for the purpose of attempting to impeach her with a prior statement that would otherwise be inadmissible." Fitz argues such impeachment is improper and should be excluded.

The other fight coming up is over the defense plan to call Jill Abramson of the New York Times to impeach Judy Miller. Fitz' brief is here, Libby's is here.

Firedoglake is live-blogging the proceedings. Tom Maguire has background.

In a much lauded (not by me) piece, Larry Diamond passed a big piece of misinformation that was credulously accepted by too many:

Beyond this, the president and vice president subscribe to what some call the "unitary executive," which is a fancy way of saying they believe that Congress cannot prevent the president from doing almost anything he wants. . . . [Bush] could still attack Iran and have up to 90 days before being required to get congressional authorization for the attack.

The Unitary Executive theory propounded by the Bush Administration is a travesty, but it does not provide for what Diamond says it does. In relevant part, it means that once the CONGRESS authorizes military action, then the President's power as Commander in Chief is plenary. In any event, the Supreme Court has scuttled this idea with its decisions in Rasul, Hamdi and Hamdan.

Bruce Ackerman debunks Diamond's false claim:

BA: The president has to get another authorization for a war against Iran. It isn't up to Nancy Pelosi or the House to prevent him; he doesn't have the constitutional authority to just expand the war. He does not have the authority to unilaterally invade Iran....

FP: What about actions short of invasion: air strikes or hot pursuit?

BA: Air strikes would be an invasion. It's an act of war of an unambiguous variety....On a major incursion into another large Middle Eastern country, I believe that, when push comes to shove, the president will once again request the explicit authorization of Congress. When he was contemplating the invasion of Iraq, he was in a much stronger position politically -- and he was still obliged to request authorization.

Obviously I agree with my former Con Law professor. But he does miss the important wrinkle - that the 2002 Iraq AUMF could be Bush's rationale for striking Iran. That is why I say to stop a war with Iran, end the war in Iraq.

For Cheney, Libby and all the Administration's manipulators, who will soon be finding out the jury's verdict:

"The highways jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive
Everybodys out on the run tonight but theres no place left to hide"

The Pentagon announced today that an investigation of prisoner abuse claims at Guantanamo were unfounded. Of course, they didn't bother to interview any of the detainees.

The investigation was initiated after Marine Sgt. Heather Cerveny advised the military that she heard a conversation among guards at a bar in which "they described beating detainees as common practice."

Jane Hamsher, Arianna Huffington and Swopa discuss today's Tim Russert Testimony.

There's more at Firedoglake and Huffington Post.

For MSM reporting, there's the Washington Post and the New York Times.

And, if you have a spare seven hours, you can listen to Libby's grand jury transcripts:

• March 5, 2004 Grand Jury Testimony
• March 24, 2004 Grand Jury Testimony

The transcripts are here and here.

I'm with TRex, I don't get the media fascination with Astronaut Lisa Nowak's arrest. There's nothing about it I find even remotely interesting.

Big Media's lurid coverage of this case is off key, out of line, and really, unduly fixated on the salacious details, but of course, why should we expect any different? There's a woman to be degraded and humiliated here! Call out Greta Van Suffering!

If you feel differently, here's a place to discuss it.

Tim Russert, walking with a crutch under his arm, has arrived at the D.C. Courthouse to testify in the Scooter Libby trial. The judge took lunch late to finish the 40 minutes left of Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony. Then, the jury will hear from Mr. Russert who will deny discussing Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, with Mr. Libby on July 10, 2003. (Background here.)

Swopa at Firedoglake and Media Bloggers will live blog the testimony.

Update: Fitz's direct examination took 11 minutes, Maine Web Report has the details.

Contrary to my earlier speculation, Wells, not Jeffress is conducting the cross-examination.

Update: From the Firedoglake and Maine Web Report live-blogging, it seems like Wells did a very good job of crossing Russert. I'm glad to hear that because I think he's an excellent lawyer but had the impression in the trial segments I watched that his crosses were too lumbering.

Now we'll see what the MSM and cable news has to say. I'm headed to the gym where I'll watch it on the treadmill. Russert will be back for more cross-examination and redirect by Fitz tomorrow.

The Chicago Tribune reports on Rudy's speaking fees and the questions it raises for his potential presidential bid.

He commands $100,000 for a speech, not including expenses, which his star-struck clients are happily willing to pay. In one speech last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani requested and received travel on a private Gulfstream jet that cost the school $47,000 to operate. His visit essentially wiped out the student speakers annual fund.

Like other high-priced speakers in the private sector, Giuliani routinely travels in style. Besides the Gulfstream, which is a standard perk on the big-time speakers circuit, his contract calls for up to five hotel rooms for his entourage, including his own two-bedroom suite with a preferred balcony view and king-size bed, in the event of an overnight stay. The Oklahoma contract also required a sedan and an SUV, restrictions on news coverage and control over whom Giuliani would meet, how he would be photographed and what questions he might be asked.

Then there is his investment bank, which he is trying to sell, and his consulting and security businesses.

His spokesperson says:

Eric Boehlert has a terrific article up at Media Matters on the larger context of the media coverage of the Valerie Plame leak and the Scooter Libby trial:

So as the facts of the White House cover-up now tumble out into open court, it's important to remember that if it hadn't been for Fitzgerald's work, there's little doubt the Plame story would have simply faded into oblivion like so many other disturbing suggestions of Bush administration misdeeds. And it would have faded away because lots of high-profile journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, and NBC wanted it to.

In a sense, it was Watergate in reverse. Instead of digging for the truth, lots of journalists tried to bury it. The sad fact remains the press was deeply involved in the cover-up, as journalists reported White House denials regarding the Plame leak despite the fact scores of them received the leak and knew the White House was spreading rampant misinformation about an unfolding criminal case.

And that's why the Plame investigation then, and the Libby perjury trial now, so perfectly capture what went wrong with the timorous press corps during the Bush years as it routinely walked away from its responsibility of holding people in power accountable and ferreting out the facts.

Here's a bit more on the "timorous press corps."

The Government will call its final witness today in the Scooter Libby trial. It's NBC's Tim Russert.

For other takes, be sure to check in with Firedoglake, Empty Wheel, Just One Minute and Media Bloggers. Here's mine:

Fitzgerald wants to end his case on a high note. That's why even today, he wasn't sure he was going to call "the mystery witness," a low-level DOJ employee. He'd rather end with Russert, who he thinks will be the final linchpin, the one who will put his case over the top and bring it home.

I suspect Jeffress will do the cross-examination since he has crossed all the journalists so far, if I'm not mistaken.

Jeffress may try to hammer home that Russert didn't have to go before the grand jury but got interviewed in his lawyer's office. Jeffress took this route with Matt Cooper (although I thought that line of questioning went nowhere.)

There is another wrinkle with Russert the defense may try to exploit, that Russert and Fitz had a deal whereby Russert was only asked questions about Russert'ss side of the conversation. In other words, he was questioned about what he told Libby, not what Libby told him.