The She-Pundit with long blond hair is back in the news. Think Progress reports she called John Edwards "a faggot" at a conservative gathering. Crooks and Liars has the video. Think Progress also notes that Ms. C. has used sexual slurs in the past:

Previously, Coulter has put “even money” on Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) “coming out of the closet,” said Bill Clinton shows “some level of latent homosexuality,” and called Vice President Al Gore a “total fag.”

Human Rights Campaign issued this statement:

“To interject this word into American political discourse is a vile and disgusting way to sink the debate to a new, all-time low,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Make no doubt about it, these remarks go directly against what our Founding Fathers intended and have no place on the schoolyard, much less our country’s political arena.”

More...

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced today that Frances Harvey, Secretary of the Army, has resigned in the wake of Walter Reed-gate.

A new chief of Walter Reed Hospital has been appointed:

Army officials announced after Gates' news conference that Maj. Gen. Eric R. Schoomaker will be the new commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and North Atlantic Regional Medical Command. Schoomaker currently is the commanding general of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick, Md.

According to the Reuters link above,

The jury in the Scooter Libby trial sent two questions to the Judge today before leaving early for the weekend. You can view them here.

The one about reasonable doubt is the most interesting.

We would like clarification of the term "reasonable doubt." Specifically, is it necessary for the Government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury instruction on reasonable doubt is here.

Update: My thoughts below:

Bump and Update: Via DOJ spokesperson Randall Samborn:

The Libby jury delivered two notes containing questions when they were excused today. Both notes will be available on the public docket later today. Court will convene at 9 a.m. on Monday March 5 to address the notes.

Update: No verdict today.

*********

Libby Trial: Verdict Unlikely Today

A verdict is unlikely today in the Scooter Libby trial. The jurors' note (pdf) yesterday said they wanted to be excused at 2:00 pm to attend to "personal, professional and medical obligations," and the Judge granted it.

The judge thinks they will deliberate into next week. And yes, it appears they care about being dressed appropriately when the verdict is returned:

Via dpg, in an interview with Ed Schultz, Barack Obama chose to insult those of us committed to ending the Debacle in Iraq while simultaneously getting punked by George Bush, and bringing Jim Webb along for the ride:

There are no good options on Iraq . . . People are going to have concerns no matter what proposals are offered. . . . In the Senate you still need 60 votes. . . . There's gonna be a discrepency between those who want to EXPRESS a full throated desire to end the war and those who want to actually pass something through the Senate and have to take Republican votes into account . . .

I find that answer extremely insulting. I neither want to EXPRESS a full throated desire to end the war or have "something pass" through the Senate. I want the war to end. I believe it is clear that defunding is the only viable way. I have suggested the announcing a date certain in the future when no more funding will be provided is the way to do it. I won't repeat my arguments again. But Obama's condescension and sheer nonsense on this is insulting.

On defunding:

I have concerns about cutting off funding . . . Jim Webb has some concerns, both of us have been consistent critics of the war. I think there is a possibility, given how obstinate the Administration is, that if we try to cut off funding, Bush is hellbent on doing what he is doing . . . he may decide to play chicken and say 'you guys do whatever you want [I'm keeping the troops there]' . . .

Hell, why does Bush even need to play chicken with Senate Dems? Obama and Webb seem to have been pre-punked by Bush. For if Obama lets Bush's "obstinancy" paralyze him when Bush has said the Congress has the power to end the war through the Spending Power, then what in the hell is he proposing? Oh, let me guess, Obama 2008. A lot less likely to have my support after hearing Obama on Ed Schultz. Pathetic.

I have written so much on the Iraq Debacle and how to end it, that I really feel all I am doing now is repeating myself. I am for the Democratic leadership of Congress announcing a date certain for when no more funding would be provided for the Irag Debacle. The date is subject to political consideration. But pick a date certain. Everyone agrees the Congress can do this. Including Bush and Cheney. Despite that some on the Left still write this:

Dems don't have either the votes or the balls to force a constitutional confrontation with Bush to get us out of this war.

What Constitutional Crisis? There would be NO Constitutional Crisis.

After 5 years in captivity at Guantanamo, Australian David Hicks was charged with a terror crime Thursday, for which he will face trial by military tribunal.

A charge of attempted murder was rejected, and Hicks will be tried for the catch-all crime of providing material support to terrorists.

Under the Military Commissions Act, Hicks must be arraigned within 30 days and a military judge will have 120 days to form the military commission.

As to the specific acts Hicks is believed to have committed:

New York is the latest state to abandon the principle that people should be punished, once and only once, for what they have done, but never for a crime they have not committed. Sexual predator laws deprive sex offenders of their liberty after they finish their sentences -- a detention that seems to many (but not to a majority of the Supreme Court) to be a second punishment that isn't moored to a new crime.

Those convicted of any of a wide range of sex-related felonies would be reviewed for potential detainment after their prison sentences end, including those convicted of some nonviolent crimes like giving minors indecent material.

States are permitted knock the cap off sentences by changing the label from "punishment" to "treatment." The state claims the power to detain and treat dangerous and disordered sex offenders to protect against future sex crimes that it fears the detainee will otherwise commit. The laws depend on the assumption that a court can accurately gauge the likelihood that a particular offender will commit a future sex crime -- as if judges, or anyone else, can reliably predict an individual's future behavior. It's sad that New York has joined the score of states that use fear of future criminality to justify the continued imprisonment of sex offenders who have fully served their sentences.

The agreement would also create a new “sexually motivated felony” that would apply to those who intended to commit a sex crime but did not.

Democrats subpoenaed four fired U.S. Attorneys to a hearing on Tuesday to determine if they were fired for political reasons.

The Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law approved the subpoenas for former prosecutors in Arkansas, New Mexico, Seattle and San Diego -- all of whom will be required to appear for testimony at a hearing Tuesday. The Senate Judiciary Committee announced plans for a similar hearing on the same day.

David Iglesias of New Mexico charged his firing was retaliatory for his refusal to prosecute Democrats before the November election.

North Dakota's legislature deserves credit for ridding the state of an unenforceable law.

Under the provision, which has passed the both the state House and state Senate, living together “openly and notoriously” while unwed would no longer be considered a sex crime.

Think of all the cohabiting sex criminals who will suddenly become law-abiding citizens.

Malkin still silent, but McCain is sorry:

Last evening, I referred to American casualties in Iraq as wasted. I should have used the word, sacrificed, as I have in the past.

From the NYTimes:

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., the historian whose more than 20 books shaped discussions for two generations about America’s past and who himself was a provocative, unabashedly liberal partisan, most notably in serving in the Kennedy White House, died last night in Manhattan. He was 89.

. . . Twice awarded the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, Mr. Schlesinger exhaustively examined the administrations of two prominent presidents, Andrew Jackson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, against a vast background of regional and economic rivalries. He strongly argued that strong individuals like Jackson and Roosevelt could bend history.