J. Stephen Griles is now in the Justice Department's cross-hairs.

Federal prosecutors have notified a former deputy secretary of the interior, J. Steven Griles, that he is a target in the public corruption investigation of Jack Abramoff's lobbying activities, sources knowledgeable about the probe said.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that among the possible criminal charges being investigated is whether Griles made false statements to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in 2005 about job discussions Abramoff initiated while Griles was deputy secretary. Griles's attorneys did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

When Griles folds, will he implicate former Interior Secretary Gale Norton?

I've been reading all day about the Apple iPhone. It looks very cool. But I kept wondering, what does it have that the Treo doesn't have?

I just got the Treo 680 over the holidays, so the TL kid could take my Motorola Razor - he had a dinosaur of a Nokia.

Aside from the fact that the Treo's phone reception sucks and the battery needs daily recharging, I finally figured out most of its bells and whistles and I like it.

I love my video iPod, but I'm wondering whether I'd shell out $500 to $600 bucks for a new one just because it has a phone and a touch screen.

Logic like this escapes me:

To answer my own question - Yes. But not in the way that is being discussed today by Senator Kennedy:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Prohibition on use of funds for escalation of United States forces in Iraq.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States Government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the level for such forces which existed as of January 1, 2007, without a specific authorization of Congress by law for such an increase.

Of course, as a practical matter, the President can and will veto any such legislation. But even if such a veto could be overridden, the law would be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, impinging on the President's power as Commander in Chief in Wartime. In order to act in the manner Senator Kennedy wishes, the Congress must strip the President of the power the Congress granted him to wage war in Iraq. To wit, the Congress needs to "undeclare" the Iraq Debacle by repealing the Iraq War resolution. A new resolution can be approved authorizing the use of force in Iraq for a purpose the Congress wishes, but I believe Senator Kennedy is wrong when he says:

In October 2002, Members of Congress authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein, not to send our troops into a civil war. I voted against that resolution and feel an escalation of this war only compounds the original mistake of going in the first place.

Congress authorization was broader than this:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

This blanket grant of war power to the President was a disgrace. But it was done. And now it must be undone. More.

The first good result from the November elections...

William Haynes, William G. Myers III and Terrence Boyle had all decided to abandon their quest for confirmation. Another nominee, Michael Wallace, let it be known last month that he, too, had asked Bush to withdraw his nomination.

Sen. Patrick Leahy says only consensus nominees have a chance of being confirmed.

It's time for the Tuesday open thread.

Just a word of caution, I've been getting a lot of emails that several commenters are not abiding by the commenting policy here in that they are personally insulting others with different points of view from their own. Others are commenting more than 20 times a day and not adding thoughts of substance. If you have that much to say, please start your own blog.

Also, some are misusing the rating system. Please rate the comment, not the commenter. It's not a popularity contest.

The diaries have been moved to the inside right column. Scribe has one today examining Alberto Gonzales' testimony at the NSA warrantless wiretapping hearings, asking whether he testified falsely when asked whether the Administration was opening mail.

I'll be back to posting later this afternoon.

Who could forget the Atlanta Courthouse shootings case in 2005 and the 26 hour manhunt for the suspect who shot and killed a judge, court reporter, sheriff's deputy and customs agent? Or Ashley Smith, the young woman and born-again Christian who talked him into surrendering and became an overnight sensation?

Jury selection begins Thursday. The trial should take six months and will be televised. Georgia is seeking the death penalty.

I have an op-ed today in the Washington Examiner asking whether the death penalty is necessary in this case and suggesting that Nichols' trial provides us with an excellent opportunity to rethink our position on the death penalty in general.

For fear of appearing soft on crime, Democrats have raised little objection over the years to draconian sentencing laws. This NY Times article gives us reason to hope that sentencing reform might be a priority in the new Congress.

Among those eagerly awaiting signs of change are federal judges, including many conservatives appointed by Republican presidents. They say the automatic sentences, determined by Congress, strip judges of individual discretion and result in ineffective, excessive penalties, often for low-level offenders.

Starting with the crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity and moving to senselessly harsh mandatory minimums, Congress will have plenty to consider.

The House Judiciary Committee, under the new leadership of Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, is planning hearings on the laws, starting later this month or in early February.

Punishing for the crime proved at trial, not for additional crimes imagined at sentencing, should also be high on the reform agenda.

They share the delusion that escalating the war in Iraq will lead to victory, so the answer might be yes to MSNBC's question: Does a McCain-Lieberman ticket make sense? That is, it makes sense to think they might join together in a last mutually desperate struggle to attain relevance.

It would be difficult to improve on Jano Cabrera's take on whether it makes sense for voters to care:

"Barring a radical turn of events in Iraq, I can't imagine 'Vote Hawk' serving as an effective rallying cry in ‘08."

Via CREWE and Huffpo:

CREW was provided a photo of President Bush and Jack Abramoff taken at a campaign fundraiser in December 2003. The White House did not want anyone to see this photo.

ABC has more on how last spring Bush moved to restrict public access to White House visitor logs.

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows Bush's approval level on Iraq has sunk to its lowest level of his presidency -- 26%.

It also found that Americans want Democrats to have "more control over the direction of the nation.

Among the findings:

Nearly half of those surveyed say the United States can't achieve its goals in Iraq regardless of how many troops it sends. One in four say U.S. goals can be achieved only with an increase in troop numbers.

Eight in 10 say the war has gone worse than the Bush administration expected. Of those people, 53% say Bush deserves "a great deal" of blame; 41% place a great deal of blame on Iraqi political leaders.

Update: The latest Gallup/USA Today poll shows 61% of Americans oppose increased troop levels. Democrats, meanwhile, consider their options to the President's proposed plan to increase troop levels.

Wednesday night, President Bush will address the nation with details of his new plan for Iraq. The plan calls for sending more troops to Iraq.

Think Progress is tracking congressional response to a plan that adds more troops.

....only seven lawmakers have given their public support to Bush’s escalation plan, twenty-three have come out in opposition, and fifteen have said they will withhold judgement for now.

Arianna has a scathing commentary on the plan.

When it comes to the White House's latest "new approach" to Iraq, we are definitely entering "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" territory.

....It's one thing to believe you're Napoleon. It's quite another to send more young people to die in your Waterloo.

More video of Saddam Hussein's hanging are making the rounds.

Here's the latest, showing him dead with his neck ripped open and exposed.

Mypetjawa has the full video, as obtained from a Shia website and put on Google.