The usually very good NYTimes Editorial page is very bad today on the Iraq supplemental funding bill. The basic problem is it is wrong on all the facts. The Times said:

The benchmarks spelled out in this legislation . . . require that the Iraqi government stop shielding and encouraging the Shiite militias that are helping drive the killing. . .

No it does not. The President "decides" if the Iraqis are making progress. Any doubt on what he will think?

The White House made a generous offer: "we'll let them talk, but no oath and no recording or transcripts." And the President and his talking head had the audacity to decry "partisan politics."  Apparently it's only "partisan" if a Democrat is doing it. If a Republican does, it is the order of the day.

The House said "No thank you. We'll subpoena you." When the White House treats the Just Us Department as its personal legal office and tempers justice with whether the prosecutor is a "loyal Bushie," and Karl Rove calls the shots because the President is disengaged or just doesn't care what happens in government, that is what it deserves.  

So, the showdown begins: The gunfight at the D.C. Corral:

How do you define chutzpah? See Fred Hiatt. Today he writes:

It would not be acceptable for Mr. Bush to fire the attorneys to short-circuit prosecutions of political corruption among Republicans. So far there's no evidence that he did, and in fact the most questionable conduct we know of originated in Congress, with New Mexico Republicans Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson.

Wow! Did Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson fire David Iglesias? What a disgrace Hiatt is. But it gets worse:

Lawmakers would do well to demonstrate more understanding of the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here . . . and remember . . . a Republican Congress eager to rifle through the files of a Democratic administration.

I remember WaPo cheering a Starr doing the same thing:

"The White House should remember that what is driving this story," the Post pronounces, "is not the conduct of Mr. Starr's staff, alleged leaks, supposed media bias or -- in Mrs. Clinton's now famous words -- a 'vast right-wing conspiracy.' Mr. Clinton is the only one who can make this matter go away, and he remains entirely free to do so at any time."

Is Mr. Bush not entirely free to do the same now? But a horse's ass is a horse's ass of course of course. In this case, his name is Mr. Fred.

Let's not restrict the U.S. Attorney firing scandal to those who got fired. According to the Justice Department's lead prosecutor in the tobacco lawsuit,

Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

The specifics of her allegations:

Below the Fold.

Federal authorities arrested 350 immigrants working at a factory in New Bedford, Massachusetts, then realized that they didn't have 350 beds to house the prisoners. The decision to ship them to Texas was at best the result of poor planning. At worst, it was a deliberate attempt to impair the immigrants' access to counsel.

“The government moved them to try to interfere with their rights,” said Bernard J. Bonn III, a lawyer representing 178 immigrants who were initially taken to Fort Devens, a decommissioned Army base in Massachusetts, but flown to Texas because, federal officials said, the base did not have enough beds. “They had 11 months to plan this raid, and after two days they run out of space at Fort Devens because they needed it for someone else?”

A Justice Department spokesperson magnanimously explained "that the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency gave detainees a window of time to find lawyers." How nice of them to partially open a "window" for the detainees, some of whom left their children behind as they were whisked away to Texas.

This is flabbergasting:

A judge on Wednesday suspended the murder trial of a man accused in a 2005 courthouse killing spree because of problems the state has had funding his defense. Superior Court Judge Hilton Fuller said the funding situation forced him to postpone the questioning of potential jurors in Brian Nichols' case until September 10. The questioning already had been delayed once because of defense funding problems.

Good for the judge, who rejected the prosecutor's predictable claim that the defense had spent enough money already.

The Georgia Public Defender Standard's Council is seeking more money from the state to make up for a budget shortfall. The state House on Tuesday approved a budget that includes the money, but it still needs Senate approval and the governor's signature.

Mike Mears, the council's director, said Tuesday that since final approval of the money may not come until April or May, his office recently told private attorneys assigned to indigent conflict cases that the council will not be able to pay their fee requests for two to three months.

Memo From the Defense Bar to the Justice Department:

Henceforth, if you subpoena our clients to appear before a Grand Jury, we’ll make a deal with you. Our clients will answer questions in the secrecy of the Grand Jury room, but there can’t be any court reporters there, or witnesses, and there can only be one or two Grand Jurors, and they can’t be fluent in English. And oh, no oaths. We're sure you'll agree that these conditions are fair, reasonable and respectful.

I consider David Sirota a good friend and a good progressive. Much more progressive than I across the board. He has written a piece supporting a Yes vote on the Iraq supplemental funding bill with which I profoundly disagree. But I am very glad David wrote the piece. David, alone amongst the proponents of this piece of legislation, has taken the objections some of us raise seriously and has attempted to respond to our concerns in detail.

For that I am grateful to David. One of my biggest concerns in this episode was the kneejerk attempts to shut down discussion of the merits of this bill. Too many bandied in misinformation, falsehoods and insults to the "idiot liberals' like myself. David has avoided this in his response. As I say, David is a friend, and I expect nothing less from him.

And yet he is wrong. I will explain why I think so on the other side.

RNC Regional Director James Tobin's phone jamming conviction has been reversed. It's remanded for a new trial. The opinion is here. (pdf).

Tobin was sentenced to 10 months in prison on charges of telephone harassment. But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that the statute under which Tobin was convicted "is not a close fit" for what Tobin did and questioned whether the government showed that Tobin intended to harass. A Justice Department spokesman said prosecutors were reviewing the decision, and did not say if they planned to appeal.

The Government will now decide whether to appeal.

An AP report on a Iraq proposal spearheaded by Sen. Byrd:

Senate Democrats have drafted a $121.5 billion war spending bill that would direct President Bush to begin bringing home troops from Iraq with the goal of ending U.S. combat missions there in just over a year.

But unlike that resolution, Democrats think the spending legislation has a much better chance of passing. Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat who voted against last week's resolution, has agreed to support the spending legislation because it includes a provision he wants outlining benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., released details to panel members Wednesday in anticipation of a committee vote on the bill on Thursday.

(Emphasis supplied.) The key point for me is whether the funding is to the date certain Byrd specifies March 31, 2008. If it is, I think it likely that I could strongly support such a measure. I'll remind those who have not understood my views on the flip.

Yes, I changed my mind this morning and decided to live-blog another day at the Joseph Nacchio insider trading trial. I'm actually enjoying it now, so I will continue for most of the afternoon.

The transcript of yesterday's opening arguments is now available here(pdf).

You can read the live-blogging at 5280.

I did get formally introduced to Joe Nacchio and Herb Stern this morning. I'm sitting behind the Nacchio family in the courtroom today.

I only have one laptop battery so I can't stay in the courtroom the whole time because there are no electrical outlets for us. It's so much better in the courtroom than the media room where you only get a partial view and it's hard to hear. But better in the media room than nowhere.

We'll see how this plays out:

A House Judiciary subcommittee today authorized subpoenas for Karl Rove, President Bush’s political adviser, and other senior White House officials in the investigation into the firing of eight United States attorneys.

Democrats said the subpoenas, approved on a voice vote of the panel, would not be issued immediately but could provide leverage for Congress in trying to win the testimony of the aides being sought.

. . . Republicans on the subcommittee said they did not dispute the power of Congress to call the officials, but said the action was premature and smacked of politics. . . .

Score round 1 for the Dems. The GOP just conceded the officials can be called.