Newsweek reports on the apparent looming indictment against Bernie Kerik, using non-public, law enforcement records of his phone calls, showing that around the time he withdrew his nomination as Homeland Security chief, he spoke several times with his one-time girlfriend, former prison guard Jeanette Pinero, and with New Jersey businessman Frank DiTommaso.

Kerik was in the midst of a civil lawsuit by another prison guard who alleged Bernie passed him over for promotion because of the guard's disputes with Pinero. That suit was later recently tossed by the judge. Some details about the connection between Kerik and diTommaso are here.

Who would leak the phone records, which I assume are matters before the grand jury and secret under Rule 6(e)? I doubt it's Bernie's side. It's possible grand jury witnesses were shown the records during their testimony ....but I doubt they would have received a copy to take home and then turn over to Newsweek.

More...

I can only chuckle at stories like this:

Is it too late to bring civility to the Web? The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse. Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.

The irony of Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, whose online project has been used innumerable times in the most uncivil and unethical ways, preaching civility and control is the funniest thing I have read all day. I read the article and NO MENTION of Wikipedia's role in outing, false vicious attacks and general misbehaving is discussed. Here's my suggestion for Mr. Jimmy Wales, take care of the huge mess in your own house before you start doling out advice please.

Jeff Feldman, Ph. D., has written a book. The book was "reviewed" in the NYTimes by the ridiculous Eve Fairbanks of The New Republic. Dr. Feldman responds to the review:

Update [2007-4-9 11:54:52 by Big Tent Democrat]: Jack Balkin makes similar points with much less verbiage.

Linda Greenhouse yesterday wrote with seeming mirth about Chief Justice John Robert's biting dissent in the EPA/Global Warming case. In particular, Greenhouse appeared to enjoy Justice Stevens' invocation of federalism as a basis for granting standing to the petitioners:

In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens found five votes for the conclusion that Massachusetts not only met all three tests but was also entitled to special deference for its claim to standing because of its status as a sovereign state. Invoking no modern precedent — because there was none — to support this new theory of states’ rights, Justice Stevens deftly turned the court’s federalism revolution, which he has long opposed, on its head and provoked an objection from the chief justice. States have “no special rights or status” when it comes to standing, Chief Justice Roberts said.

While this is all just another manifestation of legal realism from all of the Justices, I do think it has some interesting implications that go beyond this discrete issue. I'll discuss why I think so on the flip.

As I think we all knew, it is becoming clear that the Pelosi in Syria "scandal" was trumped up by the White House. Josh Marshall does some legwork on the Israeli "clarification:"

Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is another person who follows these issues closely and knows a lot about them -- that is to say, he doesn't approach these issues through the prism of reading Drudge or what the Vice President said on the Rush Limbaugh show. In any case, Kampeas takes a look at the story. It's a lengthy piece with a lot of important detail. But let me excerpt this section which touches on the issue of, again, what happened?

If that was the case, why did Olmert need to make a clarification, as Israelis were not speaking on the record. Lantos suggested there was pressure from the White House. "It's obvious the White House is desperate to find some phony criticism of the speaker's trip, even though it was a bipartisan trip," said Lantos, a Holocaust survivor who is considered the Democrat closest to the pro-Israel lobby. "I have nothing but contempt and disdain for the attempt to undermine this trip." The White House had no comment on the allegations by Lantos that it pressured Olmert to offer a clarification.

This was obvious to anyone with a brain I thought.

As President Bush turns his attention to immigration reform this week, his plans to overtax the undocumented drew thousands in protest this weekend.

As to his plan:

The White House's draft plan, leaked last week, calls for a new "Z" visa that would allow illegal immigrant workers to apply for three-year work permits. They would be renewable indefinitely, but would cost $3,500 each time.

Then to become legal permanent residents, illegal immigrants would have to return to their home country, apply at a U.S. Embassy or consulate to re-enter legally and pay a $10,000 fine.

In plain English, what's the difference between Bush and a coyote?

"Charging that much, Bush is going to be even more expensive than the coyotes," said Armando Garcia, 50, referring to smugglers who transport people across the Mexican border. "He will become the No. 1 coyote."

The Army is cracking down on deserters. Many of them have already been to Iraq or Afghanistan, and are just stressed out.

“They are scraping to get people to go back, and people are worn out,” said Dr. Thomas Grieger, a senior Navy psychiatrist. Though there are no current studies to show how combat stress affects desertion rates, Dr. Grieger cited several examples of soldiers absconding or refusing to return to Iraq because of psychiatric reasons brought on by wartime deployments.

At an Army base in Alaska last year, for example, “there was one guy who literally chopped off his trigger finger with an axe to prevent his deployment,” Dr. Grieger said in an interview.

Others may not have been true volunteers in the first place, but a result of high-pressure tactics and decreased enlistment standards:

More....

Finally, the Sopranos are back. The final season, Made in America, begins tonight on HBO with Episode 78, "Home Movies." Like last year, I will be putting up a thread every Sunday night to discuss the show. Predictions, analysis, reactions, all Soprano topics are welcome.

If you get Comcast On Demand, it appears that HBO is free this weekend, including the Sopranos past episodes and tonight's new one.

The only thing I can glean from the news coverage is that not all of the story lines will be resolved by the end.

Update: Some hints here from an exclusive interview with Tony and his son.

Update: Spoiler Alert: Here's a recap for those who missed it.

Watching Meet the Press this morning, it becomes apparent that the Beltway types do not get it yet - on Iraq, what they say matter not one whit to what the American People think. The views on the Iraq Debacle are baked cake, but they still think they have something to say on the matter. The one exception, the astute Chuck Todd, the new political director for NBC (disclosure, I am friendly with Todd.) Watch as Chuck cuts through the Beltway nonsense:

MR. RUSSERT: Chuck Todd, where do we go? The president will say, “All right, you sent me your [Iraq funding] legislation, and I just vetoed it. Now what are you going to do? Are you going to give me money for the troops, or are you going to tell the American people you’re not going to support this war anymore?

MR. CHUCK TODD: Well, it’s interesting. What I don’t understand what the White House is doing is that every time Democrats propose something that allows them to potentially take co-ownership of the war, Bush actually stops them, and politically it actually puts the Democrats in an advantageous position because they can sit there and say, “Well, you know what, we’ve, we’ve tried to take some responsibility for this war. The president won’t do it. He’s vetoing this legislation. This is still Bush’s war. This is still a Republican war.” And that’s sort of the frustration that I’m sensing from some Republicans, not, not inside the White House, but on Capital Hill and on the campaign trail a little bit . . . In 2008 it’s going to be a real death knell for the Republican Party.

You think the Beltway understands this? They do not. Not even most Dems understand this.

Sometimes I just feel like shouting "Wake up, people." Ten U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq this weekend.

Among the 10 U.S. deaths announced Sunday were three soldiers killed by a roadside bomb while patrolling south of Baghdad; one killed in an attack south of the capital; and two who died of combat wounds sustained north of the capital, in Diyala and Salahuddin provinces. On Saturday, the military said, four U.S. soldiers were killed in an explosion near their vehicle in Diyala.

At least 3,280 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians.

It's way past time to get the hell out of there.

Continuing with my media theme today, Bob Raissman of the New York Daily News puts his finger on why Don Imus will go unpunished for his racist comments (video here) about the Rutgers women's basketball team: Dollars. As in money the show makes through advertising.

Which leads to the next question: Who are his show's advertisers?

I don't know, since I don't listen and haven't found a list online. But, what I did find on his MSNBC show site is that he markets his own goods. Those should be easy to boycott. Like Imus Ranch Foods. He has a foundation to help kids with cancer spend time on his ranch, and the money ostensibly goes there, but you don't need Imus to help kids with cancer. St. Jude's is a great alternative.

And what about getting guests not to go on the show? Tim Russert is scheduled for Monday morning. Why doesn't he cancel?

More...

I love this piece by Alexandra Zacharios-Haight at Huffington Post praising Diane Keaton and Helen Mirren and other actresses over 50.

I agree Diane Keaton, one of my all-time favorite actresses, is extremely under-rated. From Looking for Mr. Goodbar to Annie Hall to Something's Gotta Give, she is just so terrific.

The comparisons:

Wisdom, character. These are the new aesthetic criteria for beauty. The vapid, vacuous images of Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears and others are no longer just annoying, they are profoundly disturbing. The crash and burn of Anna Nicole Smith is another chilling and grizzly phenomenon. None of this is beautiful or sexy. And the media coverage of these young women is ugly and cheap. Thank goodness for The Huffington Post, where we can EAT THE PRESS.

Here's to the new goddesses of love, beauty and wisdom--the Athenas and Aphrodites of 2006/07 and all over 50: Jane Alexander, Judi Dench, Tyne Daly, Ruby Dee, Nora Ephron, Mia Farrow, Arianna Huffington, Diane Keaton, Eartha Kitt, Sherry Lansing, Yoko Ono, Nancy Pelosi, Lynn Redgrave, The Ronettes, Patti Smith, Meryl Streep, Anna Wintour and Queen Elizabeth II (mostly thanks to the artistry of Helen Mirren and the extraordinary power of a great film). And whether we like it or not, Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice are part of the phenomenon as well.

I'd add Susan Sarandon and Goldie Hawn. Any others?