Right, but why are the 16 words even relevant to this trial? Why isn't defense counsel jumping up with, "Objection, relevancy, your Honor"? It seems to be more negative, anti-war, juror-manipulating, Bush-bashing allowed to creep in.
Of course, it opens the door for the defense to possibly show Wilson lied about his findings regarding the 16 words, thereby justifying the WH's attempts to correct the record in the hopes of possibly soliciting some sympathy from the jury. But, again, neither are relevant to the seemingly, very limited charges in this case so I am surprised that testimony was allowed.
I mentioned it to imply that Ari's memory might not be as good as the prosecution wanted (or needed) it to be. I'm concerned that the immunity was granted although no written agreement as to the testimony to be offered was executed. Defense was rebuffed in their efforts to obtain such information which should normally be available.
This is really scary. I guess the moral of the story is don't ever answer questions during an investigation that rely on your memory.
I was a witness in a civil lawsuit, and I was deposed. A couple of years went by, and it seemed things were heading for a settlement, but lawyers wanted to talk to me again.
They put a copy of the deposition in front of me, and asked me to verify what I had said. It's utterly amazing how much I had testified to that I did not remember two years later.
All I could say in response was 'if that is what I testified to at the time, then that is what I recalled two years earlier.'