Last week I gave my analysis of the wrongfully convicted Georgia Thompson and what may have motivated Wisconsin U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic.

Adam Cohen writes about the case in the New York Times today, raising new questions about Mr. Biskupic's handling of the case.

One of the biggest weaknesses in the case against Ms. Thompson was that to commit the crime she was charged with she had to have tried to gain personally from the contract, and there’s no credible evidence that she did. So Mr. Biskupic made the creative argument that she gained by obtaining “political advantage for her superiors” and that in pleasing them she “enhanced job security for herself.” Those motivations, of course, may well describe why Mr. Biskupic prosecuted Ms. Thompson.

Should Mr. Biskupic resign? Can the citizens of Wisconsin have confidence in his ability to impartially judge the facts and make appropriate decisions about who to prosecute after the Georgia Thompson debacle?

Former Time reporter Matthew Cooper has been busy with a new venture called Portfolio. Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz has seen a copy of Cooper's first article for the new publication and it has some revelations about PlameGate:

Now it can be told: Matt Cooper thought that Time magazine's strategy in the Valerie Plame leak investigation was "insane." He was unhappy when his lawyer wanted to simultaneously represent I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the man whose identity Cooper was risking jail to protect. And Judith Miller got on his nerves.

More...

Episode 79 is tonight: "Stage Five".

This week, Tony finds art imitating life at the Cleaver premiere; in prison, Johnny Sack copes with more bad news. Watch Episode 79: "Stage 5" Sunday at 9PM.

Geraldo Rivera has a cameo.

Update: What a great episode. If you missed it, watch the rerun later this week.

The three innocent Duke Lacrosse players and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper appeared on "60 Minutes" tonight. Coper explained how the many stories of the accuser in the Duke lacrosse players alleged sex assault case fell apart.

DA Mike Nifong's actions were so inexcusable. As for his apology the day after the players' exoneration, it's too little too late.

As player Dave Evans said, "Rape will always be associated with my name." He'll always be known as one of the charged players.

At least, thanks to Roy Cooper, it will be followed by "he was innocent."

Now its time for Nifong to take his lumps -- either in the disciplinary hearings or in civil lawsuits by the players or both.

Christy at Firedoglake notes that the Department of Justice has released AG Gonzales' opening statement for Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing on the U.S. Attorney fireings. C-Span has it in full here.  (PDF)&nbsp.

He says he has nothing to hide and nothing improper occurred. Some quotes:

I know that I did not, and would not, ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain.

I also have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. Attorney for an improper reason. Based upon the record as I know it, it is unfair and unfounded for anyone to conclude that any U.S. Attorney was removed for an improper reason.

More

I find this hard to believe but let's make this a baseline position:

[Senator Arlen] Specter [R-PA] said he and the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, had reached agreement on Friday with the White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding, on naming an outside expert to help search for the missing e-mails. “He thought it was a good idea,” Mr. Specter said on “This Week” on ABC. “He said they have nothing to hide.”

Great. An outside expert will likely recover the missing e-mails and find out how, when and who deleted those e-mails.

That will probably tell the why too. I bet the White House reneges on the deal.

Talk about what is on your mind.

And don't forget the diaries. They are located just below the Recent Comments Table to the right.

Right now the recommended diaries include some great ones, including this one from scribe, Rove is toast.

And a reminder, Gwen Ifill on Meet the Press is must see TV.

One of the best excerpts on the flip.

If you get a chance, watch Meet The Press and watch Gwen Ifill shame the white men around the table on the Imus issue. She was brilliant.

Eugene Robinson was also good. And the general discussion, which included John Harwood and David Brooks, who was surprisingly interesting and intelligent though wrong on some things, was excellent.

The tension was palpable. And that is good. It should be. Here's the link.

Let me add, kudos to Tim Russert for putting the panel together. Good for him. He knew he would take his lumps. Well done Russert.

Update: nolo brings us some excerpts from Think Progress:

[RUSSERT:] And yet, you write this: “Why do my journalistic colleagues appear on Mr. Imus’ show? That’s for them to defend and others to argue about. I certainly don’t know any black journalists who will.”
IFILL: You know, it’s interesting to me. This has been an interesting week. The people who have spoken, the people who issued statements and the people who haven’t. There has been radio silence from a lot of people who have done this program who could have spoken up and said, I find this offensive or I didn’t know. These people didn’t speak up. Tim, we didn’t hear from you. David, we didn’t hear from you. What was missing in this debate was someone saying, you know, I understand that this is offensive. . . . The offense, the slur that Imus directed at me happened more than 10 years ago. I would like to think that 10 years from now, that Asia [her duaghter] isn’t going to be deciding that she wants to get recruited for the college basketball team or be a tennis pro or go to medical school and that she is still vulnerable to those kinds of casual slurs and insults that I got 10 years ago, and that people will say, I didn’t know, or people will say, I wasn’t listening. A lot of people did know and a lot of people were listening and they just decided it was okay. . . .

This is nice, but frankly, Ifill's appearance was much much better than this. Watch the whole thing when you can. I'll post it just as soon as I can.

Today MLB celebrates the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's breaking of the color barrier:

On April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson played in his first major league game and suceeded in breaking the color barrier that divided baseball. Over the course of Jackie Robinson's rookie year, he endured racist taunts from both fans and opposing players. On his first trip to Cincinnati, the fans cursed, taunted, threw bottles, and hurled racist epithets at Robinson. The scene became so raucous and dangerous that Brooklyn manager Burt Shotton briefly considered pulling Robinson from the game.

Today, Cinncinati outfielder Ken Griffey, Jr. will be wearing Jackie Robinson's number 42 in tribute to the man who blazed the trail. He has been joined by many other MLB stars and the entire Dodgers team will wear 42 today.

An admirable gesture from Griffey and MLB. Today is a day to remember Jackie Robinson.

Hey, don't miss this one. It's brilliant.

Lawyers for two men charged with illegally ejecting two people from a speech by President Bush in 2005 are arguing that the president’s staff can lawfully remove anyone who expresses points of view different from his.

Those who wonder how an absolute power to squelch dissent squares with the First Amendment are forgetting that while our unitary president makes our laws (remember signing statements?), no laws actually apply to him. Anyone daring to disagree with the president is dispatched with the bum's rush. Free speech? The unitary president doesn't want to be troubled with nonunitary opinions.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' Sunday WaPo piece just confirms that he should never have been nominated, confirmed or allowed to remain as the nation's chief law enforcement. Forget his mendacity. Forget his outrageous opinions. Consider only his gross incompetence. What kind of Attorney General would defend his running of the Justice Departmenr saying this:

During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.

The man running the Justice Department did not decide who would or would not be fired is his defense.

That would be a firing offense imo even if the firings were perfectly kosher. How could that be acceptable?

There was so little evidence linking Jimmy Lee Page to a 1987 double homicide in Texas that jurors shook Page's hand and congratulated him after he was acquitted. Despite the acquittal, Page went back to prison. He was on parole for an unrelated homicide, and parole officials, unconstrained by the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, decided on the basis of a police detective's testimony that Page was guilty. His parole was revoked and he's been in prison ever since.

Seems unfair that a single governmental employee can negate the judgment of a unanimous jury, doesn't it? It is, but it happens all the time.

Last year, 91 Texas parolees were returned to prison after being charged with a new crime, even though the charges against them were later dropped or they were acquitted in court.