Bump and Update (10/31): The show starts at 10:00 pm ET. It's Channel 107 on Comcast, check their website for other cable systems.

Original post (10/30)

Maybe someone will tell Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey to watch Current TV tomorrow night at 10:00 pm ET.

On Wednesday, October 31st at 10pm ET/PT, Current TV gives viewers a real look at what Waterboarding entails when two ex-Survival, Escape, Resistance and Evasion (SERE) instructors administer a controversial interrogation technique to Current Vanguard Journalist Kaj Larsen.

More...

After last night's Russert gotcha moment, Senator Hillary Clinton unequivocally embraced New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to provide drivers licenses for undocumented aliens in New York:

Mrs. Clinton’s statement affirming her support of Mr. Spitzer in his office came less than a day after she offered a muddled and hesitant position on the bill, prompting a round of denunciations by her opponents. It signaled the extent to which her advisers viewed that moment as the biggest misstep she made in the debate, and one with long-term potential to undermine her candidacy. “Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,’” her campaign said.

Senator John Edwards had lot of criticism for Clinton, but little to say on the actual issue. That little game is over now. Where do you stand on the issue Sen. Edwards? We do not need any doubletalk from you.

Surprise in the case against former AUSA Richard Convertino, who prosecuted the fiasco of the Detroit terror trial. He's been acquitted on all counts.

He was charged with obstruction of justice for concealing evidence in the case.

Three defendants were convicted during the terror trial and the case was later reversed for prosecutorial misconduct. How did he get acquitted? I have no idea, but here was his defense:

During an emotional closing to the four-week trial, William Sullivan, the attorney for Convertino, pointed out that the terror suspects weren’t retried and said that the government had substituted Convertino and Smith for them.

TalkLeft covered the Detroit terror trial and Convertino extensively. See here, here and here as background.

The bribery trial of Brent Wilkes has gone to the jury.

Wilkes surprised everyone by taking the stand in his own defense, particularly prosecutors.

From accounts I've read, Wilkes was credible job on the stand, the jury liked him and laughed at his jokes and Geragos gave a good closing.

While everyone is focused on Michael Mukasey's refusal to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture, another story is being overlooked.

A must read: Wayne Barrett's latest in the Village Voice, No Skeletons in My Closet.

When Mukasey was nominated, I expressed concern about his closeness to Rudy Giuliani.That concern has just grown exponentially.

After reading Barrett, I'm wondering whether the reason Mukasey is willing to take on the Attorney General job for a short 14 months is because Rudy has promised to keep him in the spot should he become President.

Mukasey has said he'd recuse himself from the expected impending federal indictment of Bernie Kerik. But, as Barrett explains, Kerik is just one of many cases with connections to Rudy that the Justice Department will be handling. Mukasey's son, a partner in Bracewell-Guiliani, plays a key role in many of them.

There's also the question about whether Mukasey has been honest or complete in his description of his political activities on behalf of Rudy, particularly while he was a federal judge and not supposed to be politically active.

Here are but two examples:

Taylor Marsh has a great post about last night's Democratic debate and the behavior of NBC co-moderator Tim Russert.

Tim Russert asked 26 questions; 14 were to Clinton, with 5 directly targeting her personally....In contrast, Barack Obama got asked what he would do about air travel; whether there was life beyond earth; and the question on which all Americans' safety depends, What are you going to dress as on Halloween?

....But Russert's softballs to Obama when compared to Clinton were nakedly obvious to anyone paying attention.....Tim Russert who had no business taking sides. But he did anyway.

....Russert played a card [on the archives question] that was not only disingenuous and meant to bring in Bill Clinton into a debate where Hillary Clinton is running for president, but did so using innuendos and outright falsehoods, according to any objective player.

I agree with what she says about Russert playing debater against Hillary, joining the attack, rather than sticking to moderating.

More...

Via atrios and Molly Ivers, MoDo is particularly stupid and offensive today. As for the "politics of Hillary," she quotes someone saying:

That [Clinton political] tack, Caitlin Flanagan writes in The Atlantic, would only work if she were “willing to let us women in on the big, underlying struggle of her life that is front and center in our understanding of who she is as a woman . . .

Perhaps in the silly salons of Washington, DC that is true, but the polling indicates one thing for sure, Hillary's great strength is with women:

The consistent lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has maintained over Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and others in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is due largely to one factor: her support from women.

Much to the chagrin of MoDo and her fellow Hillary-hating travelers, women think very well of Hillary and not so well of the silly people of the Washington salons. Poor Sally Quinn.

Say hello to a new death penalty blog that launched today -- Executed Today:

Executed Today is a blog of history, sociology, biography, criminology, law, and kismet —- an unrepresentative but arresting view of the human condition across time and circumstance from the parlous vantage of the scaffold. This blog each day chronicles an historical execution that took place on that date, and the story behind it.

....Executed Today is a daily chronicle — each day the story of an historical execution that took place on this date, and the story behind it.

While the author is personally opposed to the death penalty, he says the blog is neither pro or anti-death penalty:

More...

In a much cited WSJ Op Ed piece, former Carter Administration Attorney General Benjamin Civilleti writes with Republican Dick Thornburgh and former FBI Director William Webster that:

Public disclosure of the NSA program also brought a flood of class-action lawsuits seeking to impose massive liability on phone companies for allegedly answering the government's call for help. The Intelligence Committee has reviewed the program and has concluded that the companies deserve targeted protection from these suits. . . . We agree with the committee. Dragging phone companies through protracted litigation would not only be unfair, but it would deter other companies and private citizens from responding in terrorist emergencies whenever there may be uncertainty or legal risk.

Unless they reviewed the material, it is hard to see how they could have agreed. But leave that aside. The authors of the piece may have reached this conclusion in good faith, but their conflicts of interest need to be disclosed. Civiletti is a Senior Partner in the Washington law firm Venable, which represents telcos. Similarly, Thornburgh is affiliated with Kirkpatrick and Lockhart, also a telco law firm. And Webster is with Milbank Tweed, also a telco law firm. It may have had no effect on their views, but its disclosure is necessary to maintain journalistic ethics. Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal choose not to disclose these facts.

On the SJC page. Via the Daily Kos Live Blog, the schedule:

More...

One of the biggest disappointments of last night's debate for me was Senator Chris Dodd's refusal to discuss (sure Russert and Williams were not going to ask about it, but so what, thrust the issue into the debate) the raison de etre for his candidacy - restoration of the Constitution ad the rule of law. And today, as Glenn Greenwald discusses, Senator Jay Rockefeller reaches a new disgraceful low, as he argues for total disrespect for the rule of law:

Today there is significant debate about whether the underlying program -- the president's warrantless surveillance plan -- was legal or violated constitutional rights. That is an important debate, and those questions must be answered. In the meantime, however, these companies are being sued, which is unfair and unwise. As the operational details of the program remain highly classified, the companies are prevented from defending themselves in court. And if we require them to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future.

What drivel. Losing their support in what? Breaking the law? What in blazes is rockefeller talking about? The telcos will not honor duly issued warrants because they are being sued? Ah, there's the rub. Rockefeller does not believe in the NEED for the government and telcos to follow the law. What's the rule of law to Rockefeller? Nothing at all. He is a disgrace. More.

Last night's debate was a bad night for Hillary's opponents, and especially for my candidate Chris Dodd. Let's take a look at the so- called "highlight" for the attacks on Hillary, the licenses for illegal immigration moment (the so called double talk moment):

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap.

There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

How in the world is this a problematic answer? It seems correct in every particular to me. What progressive Democrat could disagree with this? Why, my candidate, Chris Dodd, shame on him: