100 immigrants (and bloggers and videographers) departed Union Station yesterday on an Amtrak train bound for Washington. The tour is called "Dreams Across America". Along the way the immigrants will tell their story.

On June 13th, 100 dreamers will travel by train all across America to tell the stories of their American dream. You can follow them and their journeys. More important, you can tell the world your own immigrant story, or your parents’, or grandparents’, right here, in text, or by video.

I think this is such a great idea. Here's more:

Yes, we're all grateful the news is no longer focused 24/7 on Paris Hilton. But this is worth noting. I've argued all along her 45 day sentence was unfair when compared with others on probation whose only violation was driving under suspension.

The Los Angeles Times has confirmed it. Out of 2 million jail releases in L.A. County, the paper found 1,500 for persons who committed an alcohol offense, were placed on probation and then violated probation by driving under suspension.

The results:

Had Hilton left jail after four days, her stint behind bars would have been similar to those served by 60 percent of those inmates. But after a judge sent her back to jail Friday, Hilton's attorney announced she would serve the full 23 days in jail. That means Hilton will end up serving more time than 80 percent of others in a similar situation.

Paris Hilton should not receive special treatment because of her celebrity or financial status, but neither should she be treated more harshly. As Patrick Fitzgerald repeatedly said during the sentencing hearing of Scooter Libby, when it comes to sentencing, "one's station in life does not matter."

Free Paris.

If you have a 5 ounce tube of Colgate toothpaste, read this.

Five-ounce tubes of toothpaste labeled Colgate and sold in discount stores in four states are being recalled because they may contain a poisonous chemical, according to the importer.

Via mcjoan, Harry Reid says:

"I understand their disappointment," Reid said. "We raised the bar too high."

. . . He admitted to us that it was a mistake to raise expectations and that it wouldn't happen again.

What won't happen again? Raising expectations of ending the war? Ummm, too late for that Senator Reid. That is what the 2006 elections were about. There is no lowering the bar now.

Democrats need to face this reality - the "expectations" are that they will do everything possible to end the Debacle. If they do not try to end it, they will suffer consequences. And for Gawd's sake, please stop listening to Carl Levin:

The proposal to cut off money for U.S. combat is particularly far-fetched. Many leading Democrats, including Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., oppose the move because it would be seen as Democrats turning their backs on the troops.

Amazing! If it will be seen like that it is in large measure because Democrats like Levin SAY it will be seen like that. Just incredibly stupid. Meanwhile, Charlie Cook, normally astute, drinks the Beltway water:

Scooter Libby is fighting hard to get an appeal bond. He's even bringing another lawyer on board, Lawrence Robbins, to "bring his special expertise."

Personally, I think Libby should get the appeal bond. Judge Walton doesn't seem inclined to agree, but nothing is certain until he rules tomorrow morning.

Note that Libby will not be going to jail tomorrow even if the appeal bond is denied. Fitzgerald doesn't oppose that and Judge Walton said he intended to grant a voluntary at last week's sentencing hearing. He will be granted a voluntary surrender date between 30 and 45 days from now. During that time, Team Libby will appeal the denial of bond, should that occur, to the D.C. Court of Appeals.

I summed up the grounds in his initial request (pdf) here. Christy at Firedoglake analyzes Fitzgerald's response here and here.

Today, Tom Maguire of Just One Minute posts Libby's response to Fitzgerald (pdf) and provides his analysis.

Jane of Firedoglake writes about Obama's general counsel Robert Bauer calling for a Libby pardon.

More...

Karl Rove hasn't yet been served with a subpoena to testify about the role he played in the plot to fire U.S. Attorneys who didn't take politics into account when making prosecutorial decisions, but his former aide, Sara Taylor, has been subpoenaed. So has Harriet Miers. A separate subpoena directed the White House to turn over additional emails related to the firings by June 28.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto claims Congress "can easily obtain the facts they want without a confrontation by simply accepting our offer for documents and interview," but John Conyers' letter points out that "voluntary cooperation" has been a myth.

The precise role of White House officials [in the firings], however, has been kept a mystery. After an initial round of false statements to Congress on that subject - including written misstatements that the Department was forced to correct, and false testimony that remains uncorrected to this day - Justice Department witnesses have been unable or unwilling to shed any meaningful light on the basic facts regarding who at the White House played what role in selecting these U.S. Attorneys for replacement and why.

Will Rove be served with his own subpoena after the latest witnesses stonewall?

First it was Mudcat, who works for Edwards. Now it is Robert Bauer, who is General Counsel for the Obama campaign, who presents the "Progressive Case for a Libby Pardon." Both prove Garance's point:

You know, I thought everyone realized this during the Amanda Marcotte flap, but since that's clearly not the case, perhaps the latest to-do over Steve "Mudcat" Saunders's comments over at Time magazine's Swampland will drive the point home. People who are working for presidential candidates -- and this goes for all of them, and not just John Edwards -- are ill-served by engaging in anything but the most innocuous personal blogging efforts. They're likely to get their candidate in trouble if they speak freely but in a way that's off-message for the campaign . . .

Yep. BTW, for Ezra's edification, it is a Wanker post. I'll explain why on the flip.

If current national polling of presidential preferences for 2008 matter, then Senator Hillary Clinton and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the clear favorites to win their respective nominations. Historically, national polling has not meant that much. The early primary results have been much more important. Look we know who is not going to win I think - anyone not named Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Fred Thompson. But which of these will?

The most important factor that can change where we are today is the results of the early primaries. Some candidates in the past have withstood losses in early primaries and cacuses. Ronald Reagan withstood losing Iowa in 1980. George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis also lost in Iowa in 1988. They needed to win in New Hampshire to win the nomination and they did. In 1992, Tom Harkin ran for President and took Iowa out of play. Bill Clinton finished second in New Hampshire but it was deemed a "win" for the Comeback Kid.

Here's the bottom line. In the modern era, other than the exceptional circumstances of Clinton in 92, no candidate who has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire has captured the nomination. I do not believe this year will be any different.

How much does a major Hollywood endorsement help a presidential candidate? I don't know, but if it does, Hillary Clinton just scored a major win by getting the backing of Director and mogul Steven Spielberg.

Influential filmmaker and philanthropist Steven Spielberg today announced that he is officially endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. Spielberg said that he has chosen to endorse Clinton because of her experience and strength.

“I’ve taken the time to familiarize myself with the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House,” Spielberg said. “Hillary is a strong leader and is respected the world over. As president, she will bring America back together, rebuild our prestige abroad and ensure our protection here at home.”

In what I envision as true mogul ego style, one paragraph of the endorsement contains quotes about Hillary and the rest is about Spielberg's accomplishments and career. One would think he's the candidate.

Nonetheless, good for Hillary. He's a big fish.

Ten years ago today, a Denver federal jury returned a death verdict against Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing.

A few weeks ago I sat down with Colorado 850 KOA News Radio host Steffan Tubbs for an interview about what it was like to defend McVeigh. Tubbs also interviewed Houston lawyer Chris Tritico, another principal member of the trial team . The interview aired today as part of a five part series that looks back at the trial.

McVeigh was executed by lethal injection six years ago on June 11, 2001.

What is like to defend the most hated man in America? Would I do it again? You can listen here.

Other parts of the series which include interviews with the prosecutors, victims' families, members of the media and a juror are here.

[Cross-posted at 5280.com]

The Supreme Court will decide "whether investors can pursue lawsuits to recover investment losses if they can prove collusion between Wall Street institutions and scandal-ridden companies." Seems like a no-brainer that investors should be entitled to sue the entities that helped defraud them, right? Not to the Decider.

"We think the SEC is the right entity to bring those lawsuits and make sure investors are protected," [economic advisor Al] Hubbard said in describing the president's views. "We are in a society that is overly litigious and it's very harmful to society, very harmful to investors."

The president wants to curb "unnecessary lawsuits," with "unnecessary" evidently defined as any lawsuit he doesn't personally authorize. The SEC disagrees.

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 to ask the solicitor general to support shareholders in the pending court case.

Rudy Giuliani unveiled his 12 step plan for America today.

Shorter version: What war in Iraq, the only war I'm equipped to deal with is the war on terror.

[N]oticeably absent from the speech was any mention of the war in Iraq, likely to be the central challenge for any new president.

Asked afterward about the omission, the candidate said Iraq must be viewed in the context of a broader fight against terrorism. It was not dealt with singly in the speech, he said, because the fluid situation there makes it hard to speak in specifics about the war.

More...