A Tiny Revolution: Another Prediction: The Sun is going to rise tomorrow

Legal Schnauzer: Prosecutor who cleared Bush officials has connections to misconduct

The Balance Sheet: Video interview with Elizabeth Warren

MN Progressive Project: A Minnesota grandmother cut up her Target Card to protest Target giving $150,000 to RightWingNut candidate for governor Tom "I don't believe you can be a freedom-loving American and be a Democrat" Emmer.

Mock, Paper, Scissors: Tengrain Presents...Media Follies. The atrocities continue below...

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: If wishes were ICBMs,...Trusting Tucker...“Progressive” media star...This story's got everything!...Left Hand, Right Hand...More on bogus rightie journamalism...Dung Beetles...Yeah, we knew that...We knew that, too...Newspaper Truthiness...AP's selective torture reporting...Why is this hack writing for The Atlantic?...How the world sees us...A new low...Unintentionally helpful...

Third Prosecutor Quits Gitmo! 12th harmonic Blog
Rachel Maddow was praising the Australian press for being the only ones to report this.
From Rachel’s Blog:

Remember the report about two prosecutors in the Guantanamo war crimes trials saying those trials were rigged? What we knew before was that two prosecutors complained the trials were rigged and asked to be transferred out of Guantanamo so they wouldn’t have to work on them. Now, thanks to a report ONLY IN THE AUSTRALIAN PRESS, we know that a third government prosecutor also asked to be let out of the process because it was rigged. These rigged trials were blocked by a federal judge last november, but are slated to go forward again within the next few weeks. Why? Because a judge by the name of JOHN ROBERTS decided last month that the trials looked fine by him.

Well Lateline (Australia) covered it tonight and I got it on hard disk..(Missed the intro. Got the whole piece. I’ll try to get the transcript in the morning.)
[ed.note: transcript is up

Coming to a Republican congressional district near you   

Rachel Maddow was praising the Australian press for being the only ones to report this.
From Rachel’s Blog:

Remember the report about two prosecutors in the Guantanamo war crimes trials saying those trials were rigged? What we knew before was that two prosecutors complained the trials were rigged and asked to be transferred out of Guantanamo so they wouldn’t have to work on them. Now, thanks to a report ONLY IN THE AUSTRALIAN PRESS, we know that a third government prosecutor also asked to be let out of the process because it was rigged. These rigged trials were blocked by a federal judge last november, but are slated to go forward again within the next few weeks. Why? Because a judge by the name of JOHN ROBERTS decided last month that the trials looked fine by him.

Well Lateline (Australia) covered it tonight and I got it on hard disk..(Missed the intro. Got the whole piece. I’ll try to get the transcript in the morning.)
[ed.note: transcript is up

Jeb Bush: Hurricane Dennis Could Be Fault of Michael Schiavo

via Swift Report: Florida Governor Jeb Bush has asked a state prosecutor to investigate possible links between Hurricane Dennis and Michael Schiavo. Governor Bush said that he connected Mr. Schiavo with the category 3 storm after realizing that Dennis spelled backwards is actually 'sinned.' read on

This is a pretty funny satire from Deanna Swift.

NYTimes:

LOS ANGELES, May 11 - Before Hillary Rodham Clinton's former chief fund-raiser went on trial here for underreporting donations to her Senate campaign, political speculation has revolved around what if anything Mrs. Clinton knew about his alleged transgressions, as well as what if anything the trial would do to her presidential aspirations (assuming she has them)

A federal prosecutor tried to answer at least one of those questions in his opening statement on Wednesday in Federal District Court, when he told the jury, "You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any way, shape or form." ....read on

Let's see how our 24/7 does with this news. They are looking to hang this case around her neck, so don't be surprised to hear the talking heads make all sorts of allegations contrary to this report.

" Mr. Fitton said he did not find the prosecutor's statement about Mrs. Clinton's lack of involvement very credible. Furthermore, he added, "The idea that David Rosen pulled a fast one on the campaign is baloney."

Thomas J. Fitton, is the president of Judicial Watch and will be all over this trial and the 24/7 toones as well.

Uptdate: Daily Howler has more: On Hardball, they strung her up anyway

Clinton rips media, Ken Starr after opening of presidential library

Video

In a prime-time television outburst, Bill Clinton ripped old nemesis Kenneth Starr and what the former president portrayed as a gullible media eager to report every "sleazy thing" leaked from a prosecutor bent on bringing him down.

So Much For Moral Values Molly Ivins

My, my, gonna be a long four years. House Republicans have rewritten the ethics rules so Tom DeLay won't have to resign if indicted after all. Let's hear it for moral values. DeLay is one of the leading forces in making "Republican ethics" into an oxymoron.

The rule was passed in 1993, when Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, was being investigated for ethics violations. And who helped lead the floor fight to force him to resign his powerful position? Why, Tom DeLay, of course. (Actually, it's sort of a funny story. The D's already had a caucus rule that you had to resign from any leadership position if indicted. The R's changed their rules to match the D's, except they deliberately did not make their rule retroactive, so the highly indicted Rep. Joseph McDade, senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, could, unlike Rostenkowski, retain his seat.)

DeLay has already been admonished by the House ethics committee three times on separate violations of ethics rules. Please note, that is the Republican-dominated ethics committee. The hilarious rationale offered by the R's for the new rule to exempt DeLay is that no one can accuse them of taking the moral low road here because, "That line of reasoning accepts that exercise of the prosecutor in Texas is legitimate." Uh, that would Ronnie Earle of Austin, who is a known Democrat. One the other hand, Earle is quite noted for having indicted more Democratic officeholders than Republicans, so it's a little hard to argue that this is a partisan political probe. Or it would be, if facts made any difference these days to talk-show screamers...

This is a DA that wasn't very happy about not prosecuting Ben Roethlisberger for rape.

One the evening of March 4 and into the wee hours of March 5, Roethlisberger was out bar hopping with his entourage. The 20-year-old "victim" -- Bright's word, not mine -- was doing with the same with her sorority sisters. The two parties met at various establishments along the way, where the quarterback and the co-ed made small talk.

--

"Some of a sexual nature," Bright said.

--

Finally, at Capital City's VIP room -- not for nothing, but how many VIPs can there be in the metropolis of Milledgeville? -- Roethlisberger summoned the sorority girls and "provided shots of alcohol." Bright's account fits nicely with an earlier report quoting the two-time Super Bowl winner as saying: "All you bitches, take my shots."

"Everyone agrees," Bright said, "that the victim was highly intoxicated."

Again, I'm shocked.

Next, the prosecutor said, "one of the bodyguards guided the victim down a back hallway. Mr. Roethlisberger followed her down the hallway into a small bathroom."

She sustained a "superficial laceration and slight bleeding in the genital area." A test performed at the hospital indicated the presence of male DNA.

That's not evidence of criminal conduct, or, rather, not nearly enough evidence to prove it. And so there's no reason not to accept Bright's representation -- what happened in that dingy bathroom cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The woman told some of her story, wouldn't pursue charges, but didn't back off.

Bright received a letter from the accuser, whose name has not been revealed, several weeks after the incident saying she did not want to proceed with prosecution. In the letter the student’s lawyer made it clear she was not recanting her accusation.

I can understand her reluctance to press charges. I've been in a few VIP parties in my life after a gig and it's a lot of fun, but just because you meet girls who want to talk and hang out with you, it doesn't mean they've given you permission to do anything else. I've also seen a number of fairly famous musicians have a great time after a show, but never cross the line.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I've been a saint all my life, but it's really not that hard to respect women enough not to act in this fashion, even when there's alcohol involved. Roethlisberger is just a creep.

DOWNLOADS: (1742)

PLAYS: (8090)

Embed

There really wasn't a lot of substance to Alan Grayson's appearance on Hardball yesterday, but it is always pretty delightful to watch Grayson in action anyway. He just says what he thinks and lets the chips fall where they may.

The end got a little over the top, in fact:

Matthews: Dick Cheney—and that‘s how you pronounce his name—was out last night in black tie, along with his—well, his felon former chief of staff, who I think took the bullet for him in that whole matter, perjury and obstruction of justice.

And he wasn‘t out robbing gas stations. His behavior was right there in the office under Cheney‘s leadership. Anyway, the prosecutor in that case said there was a cloud over Cheney‘s head. The—the prosecutor obviously brought the justice to that guy Scooter Libby. He got convicted of a number of counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.

The president even held his nose and would not pardon these guys, wouldn‘t pardon Scooter Libby. Here‘s this guy, with all his inglorious background, out trashing the president of the United States for dithering.

Your response?

GRAYSON: Well, my response is—and, by the way, I have trouble listening to what he says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he‘s talking.

But—but my response is this. He's just angry because the president doesn't shoot old men in the face. Oh, by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?

MATTHEWS: Oh, God. We have got to keep a level here.

Even if this kind of talk horrifies you, the fact that it's coming from a Democrat is actually a relief for those of us who've watched the party perfect its Village-approved Harvey Milquetoast routine the past couple of decades.

It's one of the traits that has really harmed the Democratic brand over that time, because it's led people to believe that they don't really have the courage of their convictions, that they won't stand up and fight for anything, that they don't really believe in anything.

Alan Grayson leaves no such impression. Even if other Democrats go fleeing in horror, he's doing them -- and us -- a real service.

I would have loved a much broader scope that would have been applied to the Durham Probe on CIA interrogations, as many have already stated, but you know I see a sliver of hope buried in it. Jane Mayer said as much on Olbermann yesterday and I perked up a little when I heard her say it because I was thinking the same thing.

MAYER: Well, my guess is that if they actually open some kind of serious investigation, and Durham is said to be a very serious prosecutor, that even if they start at the very bottom, it's going to keep leading up and up through the chain of command. Because, if nothing else, if they actually bring charges against anybody at the CIA who was at the bottom of the food chain, the first thing that person's going to do is say "I was authorized, let me tell you what my orders were." So they've begun a process that could lead to the top.

Please hear me all Ye Whistleblowers. Cometh to DC and lay forth the truth unto thee! Speak thy words to Durham's ear and whisper the truth of unspeakable horrors. So dark and so horrible that thee will tremble from thy shame and call upon those who defiled us so.

If something breaks out during Durham's tepid investigation, who knows what it shall bring.

And read Dahlia Lithwick's excellent piece on this whole sordid affair.

Halfway There. Is half a torture investigation better than none at all?

DOWNLOADS: (2172)

PLAYS: (3874)

Embed

Kenneth Gladney is doing his best to cash in on his 15 seconds of fame, following his fake "brutal assault" at the hands of SEIU supporters outside a St. Louis "town hall" on health care. Today he went on Fox and Friends with his attorney, Dave Brown, who announced that he wanted local prosecutors to pursue the case as a "hate crime."

Mr. Brown appears to be confused about just what constitutes a "hate crime". Namely, it take more than merely the matter of Gladney being a black man to qualify as such a crime; indeed, the main qualification has to be that a bias motivation has to be present. That is, prosecutors would have to establish that the people being charged were motivated by the victim's race.

Gladney claims that he was called the N-word -- but the man using that word was another black man. Proving a motivation of bias against blacks will be pretty difficult under those circumstances.

Moreover, if you go back and look at the tape, a couple of other things are worth noting:

-- It's the black man with whom Gladney apparently first had a verbal altercation who we see lying on his back on the street when the tape opens. If anyone can claim to be assaulted here, it's this man.

-- It's not clear that any actual assault occurred here at all. Gladney is pushed to the ground by someone trying to clear space for his friend. Certainly, given that Gladney appears to be just fine for most of the rest of the video, there's no evidence that he suffered any harm whatsoever in the incident.

And in order to file a hate-crime charge, any prosecutor will have to prove first that a crime was committed -- well before he can even look into the question of whether it was committed with a bias motivation. Considering that both appear extremely unlikely, Brown and Gladney are clearly both just grandstanding.

Besides ... aren't conservatives opposed to hate-crimes laws as a matter of principle?