Interesting article about how bloggers handle going on vacation. Apparently most choose guest bloggers and suffer lower traffic.

For what it’s worth, my traffic went up this week as Justin Levine got a link from the National Review Media Blog, among other places.

P.S. Yes, I’m enjoying my vacation — but it’s kinda rainy today. So we didn’t do much.

What kind of person says this (check the second comment):

I’m not a liberal! The world is bigger than the conservative-liberal spectrum would suggest–and much bigger than, as it now is in the US, the spectrum of crypto-fascist on one end to moderates with tepid liberal leanings on the other!

My answer: a liberal.

In our recent discussions about jury nullification, some of you were pretty cavalier about perjury, and the concept of respect for the rule of law. I explained that jurors must take an oath to apply the law as set forth in the judge’s instructions — and jurors are always asked beforehand whether they would agree to do so. That means that, unless you are blindsided by the content of the judge’s instructions, you generally can’t nullify without first perjuring yourself. (And it’s rare that jurors will be blindsided, because in any case where nullification is a possibility, there will be extensive and detailed questioning in jury selection about jurors’ disagreements with, and ability to apply, the applicable law.)

Some bloggers and commenters came up with various ways to rationalize lying to (or misleading) the court — under oath — about whether you’d apply the law.

This question is directed at those of you who supported perjury to undermine the rule of law by nullifying in a court case:

What was your position on the Clinton impeachment, and why?

Just curious.

Most Republicans supported impeachment under the theory that, under the rule of law, nobody is allowed to lie under oath — even if they feel (as Clinton and his supporters did) that the questions are inappropriate, or stem from an improper political motivation.

Does opposition to perjury and support for the rule of law depend upon whether the guy on the hotseat is a libertarian martyr, as opposed to a hated President?

P.S. My guess is that there are not a lot of people who supported both the Clinton impeachment and jury nullification. But there are probably a few of you. That’s who I want to hear from. If you are consistent on this issue — and I’m guessing plenty of you are — I can’t stop you from boasting about it at length in the comments. But you’re not really the people I want to hear from.

P.P.S. A lot of people are trying to leap ahead to see where I’m going with this. Humor me and don’t pretend you already know my point. Just answer the questions: if you would lie to get onto a jury to nullify, where did you stand on the impeachment — and why?

P.P.P.S. Nobody is stepping up to the plate. You people are pathetic. I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Nice editorial by the editors of the Washington Post on lyin’ Joe Wilson:

[A]ll those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame’s cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame’s identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak “in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip,” according to a story this week by the Post’s R. Jeffrey Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House — that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson — is untrue.

. . . .

[I]t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Oh, that is so sweet, and so true.

Lyin’ Joe’s response? Screw the Washington Post! The truth is at firedoglake! (H/t Byron York.)

How far Mighty Joe hath fallen.

Say it ain’t so, lyin’ Joe!

P.S. If Lyin’ Joe has hit bottom, Jason Leopold is somewhere below him.

“Behold the Underminer! I am always beneath you, but nothing is beneath me!”

(You should be aware that I resort to quotes from the Incredibles from time to time. I assure you they will always be topical.)

But, as frequent Patterico commenter Dana reports, Leopold isn’t giving up.

There’s a word for doubling down — is there one for, uh, octupling down?

UPDATE: Quotation marks have been removed from around the sentence “Screw the Washington Post! The truth is at firedoglake!” to make it clear this is a paraphrase, not a quote. I thought it was clear it was a paraphrase, but the quotation marks misled one commenter — illustrating once again the danger of placing quotation marks around paraphrases.