Four years after the shooting death of actress Lana Clarkson at his Los Angeles home, record producer Phil Spector finally goes on trial for murder Monday morning.

His legal team includes New York lawyer Bruce Cutler, who previously represented John Gotti.

Clarkson was working as a hostess at the House of Blues on the Sunset Strip when she met Spector at the club and agreed to accompany him to his estate for a drink at 3 a.m., according to grand jury testimony.

Spector made conflicting statements that night, first telling his driver and police that he accidentally shot the woman and saying later that she took a revolver from him and committed suicide, court documents say. Spector pleaded not guilty.

More

This is a very weird campaign ad. The Obama campaign denies any knowledge or approval of it. I don't doubt them.

The San Francisco Chronicle call its "ground-breaking" for its remix of an Apple Computer Superbowl ad in 1984. Personally, I didn't like the ad and found it creepy.

The public won't ever see the ad on television. But, as one person quoted says,

...the success of "Hillary 1984" means that now "every candidate will have to worry about some guy with a video camera and a Mac being able to do whatever he or she wants."

As Sen. Patrick Leahy promises subpoenas to testify will issue Thursday to Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and others, Adam Cohen of the New York Times posits that criminal laws may have been broken.

“I do not believe in this ‘We’ll have a private briefing for you where we’ll tell you everything,’ and they don’t,” Mr. Leahy said on “This Week” on ABC, adding: “I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this.”

Cohen consulted with Congressional staff and law professor Stephen Gillers and comes up with this list of possible crimes:

• Misrepresentation to Congress: 18 U.S.C. 1505
• Calling Prosecutors: 18 U.S.C. 1512©
• Witness Tampering: 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)
• Firing the Attorneys: 18 U.S.C. 1512©

More...

Denver is hosting a high-profile criminal trial beginning tomorrow. It's United States v. Joseph Nacchio. Nacchio is the former CEO of Qwest communications. He's charged with 42 counts of insider trading resulting from his sale of $101 million of Qwest stock in 2001. The Government alleges he sold the stock because he knew there were big problems with Qwest meeting its financial projections.

Nacchio says nonsense. He was over-invested in telecommunications stocks and these were planned, timed sales. Plus, and this is the novel part, by virtue of serving on some Homeland Security subcommittees, he was privy to classified information showing Qwest was in line for some big Government contracts which would have made Qwest a ton of money. Thus, he did not sell because he thought Qwest was doomed.

It's the state of mind defense (like Scooter Libby in a way.)

More....

At TPM David Kurtz makes an unfair charge against Democratic Senators:

One thing you can say about Washington is that political courage rises in inverse proportion to the political strength of one's opponent. As Alberto Gonzales (a.k.a., the "walking cadaver") hemorrhages politically, everyone on the Hill is suddenly as fearless as a shark. . . . Gonzales is getting what he deserves, to be sure, but among his opponents there were far fewer profiles in courage before he was mortally wounded.

Kurtz references an article where Sens. Schumer and Leahy are quoted confronting Gonzo on the attorney firings. Kurtz acts as if they never confronted Gonzo before. But this is nonsense. Schumer and Leahy and 34 other Dems voted no on Gonzales' confirmation for Attorney General as we urged in January 2005.

This right after a stinging electoral loss. Sorry Mr. Kurtz, but those Dems were plenty brave and when it counted too. Yours is a very unfair charge. Indeed, as I recall, TPM was rather quiet on the issue of Gonzales' confirmation as Attorney General.

The Sweet Sixteen looks set:

I always suspected this was the real strategy behind the House Dems' Iraq proposal. But Matt Stoller makes it explicit:

My strategic end goal is to end the war. To do that involves a process of showing that the Democratic caucus is unified behind putting restrictions on Bush and his ability to fight the war, and then using that pressure to remove Republicans (and wayward Democrats) from office in 2008.

All the blather about communications strategies and making the war illegal, etc. was just so much talk. But at least Stoller is now forthright about it. Read what a DemHillStaffer writes on the other side.

As always, I speak for me only

Conchita points us to this e-mail from Move On:

Dear MoveOn member,

We've got a big decision coming up this week, and we need to make it together, as a community.

As early as Wednesday, the House may vote on a Democratic proposal on Iraq. The proposal was put together by Speaker Pelosi and Congressmen Obey and Murtha. It is going to be a close vote--the Republicans are against it and some conservative Democrats are uncomfortable with the bill.

Most, but not all, of the progressives in Congress are planning on voting for the bill. These progressives, like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war. And President Bush is threatening to veto it for the same reason.

I've told Rep. Murtha that this was a decision for MoveOn's members to make. Now I'm asking you to help make it. Should we support or oppose the Democrats' plan? Just click here to register your view.

I urge Move On members to register their view that the supplemental funding bill should be opposed.

At daily kos, BarbinMd eviscerates the Washington Post Editorial Board:

Self-serving, revisionist rationalizing is the only way to describe today's Washington Post editorial marking the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war. They begin:

Tomorrow marks the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, as appropriate a moment as any to take stock. What matters most is finding the best policy now -- doing whatever can be done to help Iraq and safeguard U.S. interests in a vital region. But looking back also is essential, particularly for those of us who supported the war.

Wrong. An appropriate moment for a nationally read newspaper to take stock would have been before deciding to support a preemptive war, both through editorial cheerleading and a willingness to abandon journalistic integrity and act as stenographers for the White House in the run-up to the war.

Read the whole thing.

Sorry for the lack of objectivity in the title, but the Gators play today, taking on the Boilermakers of Purdue at 2:15 EST.

The full slate on the other side.

As always, I speak for me only

Matt Stoller claims:

A shorter way thinking about the of blogs on politics is to recognize that the elite stream of opinion - that of policymakers, elites, politicians, journalists - is largely out of step with the public. Blogs play in the space between the elite stream of discourse and the discussions going on in bars and over kitchen tables. . . . Blogs are still going to push on public discourse to make it more credible and in step with the public mood.

On Iraq, the Left blogs have largely failed to do this. And Matt Stoller is one of the main culprits. Consider this:

As far as I'm concerned, passing this legislation is an important part of disengaging the Democratic party from the pro-war brand, so a vote against it is a problem. That said, I'm more charitable to progressives who vote against it as a mechanism for creating left-wing pressure, though I have serious reservations about the progressive caucus as an (dis) organized group.

Sounds like the "idiot liberals" CW meme to me. What discourse is Stoller changing on Iraq? He is spouting the DC Dem Establishment line as far as I can see see.

The Salt Lake Tribune profiles Kyle Sampson today, and how he got into the Bush Administration (through his law school pal, Elizabeth Cheney, Dick's daughter) and his rise within it.

Update: More Gonzales analysis at Newsweek's Disorder in King George's Court. Gonzales is portrayed as being "truly befuddled."