Martha Stewart's attorneys today accused the Government of withholding critical evidence in her trial--evidence that came out this week at the perjury trial of ink expert Larry Stewart. Her lawyers say it could have led to an acquittal. You can read the ten page letter here (pdf.) Martha has new lawyers for the appeal, Walter Delinger of D.C., Marty Weinberg of Boston and David Chesnoff of Las Vegas.

For those who support Martha, here's what you can do to make a difference:

You can start today by subscribing to Martha Stewart magazines, or sending them as gifts to your friends. Don't forget Everyday Food! Subscribe or buy it each month at the grocery store.

Sign this online petition to the President to pardon Martha so she loses the felony conviction. [update: site or link currently not working]

by TChris

Celebrate your First Amendment freedoms during Banned Book Week by reading a work of literature that, at some point, censors deemed unfit for consumption. The list includes such great works as Native Son, Animal Farm, On the Road, and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Or read Ray Bradbury's cautionary tale of censorship, Fahrenheit 451. Or join others at a read-in to express your commitment to intellectual freedom.

For a more complete list of books that censors think you shouldn't read, go to the American Library Association's list of 100 Most Frequently Banned Books from 1990 to 2000, including that dangerous work of sedition and smut, Where's Waldo?

The New York Times takes an exhaustive look at the Justice Department's flawed prosecution in the Detroit terror case. This is the case that Ashcroft personally vouched for in a press conference...earning him a rebuke from the Judge for violating a gag order.

Privately, senior Justice Department officials had doubts about the strength of the case even as they were moving to indict four Middle Eastern immigrants on terrorism charges. The evidence was "somewhat weak," an internal Justice Department memorandum obtained by The New York Times acknowledged. It relied on a single informant with "some baggage," and there was no clear link to terrorist groups. But charging the men with terrorism, the memorandum said, might pressure them to give up information.

"We can charge this case with the hope that the case might get better," Barry Sabin, the department's counterterrorism chief, wrote in the memorandum, "and the certainty that it will not get much worse."

Four more years of Bush is four more years of Ashcroft.

by TChris

Turns out that the old saying is true: cops have the best drugs.

For months, police officers in Weatherly complained of drugs that had been seized from suspects and then disappeared, of the unmistakable reek of marijuana smoke in the office and of finding pipes and other paraphernalia left in a desk drawer.

The target of their complaints was their boss — Police Chief Brian Cara. On Wednesday, he was arrested by state authorities and accused of using seized drugs while on duty.

It may have been more prudent to take the weed home rather than toking at work. It seems the chief began lighting up a half hour after the start of his 7:00 a.m. shift. Did he really think his subordinates wouldn't notice?

Sen. Patrick Leahy, who has championed the Innocence Protection Act for the past several years, is putting a good face on today's House passage of Rep. Sensenbrenner's (R-WI) (mostly) victims' rights bill, H.R. 5107, the "Justice for All Act."

While this bill is far from what was hoped for and what is needed from an innocence perspective, it's better than no bill at all. I have nothing but praise for Senator Leahy and Congressmen Bill Delahunt and Ray La Hood who fought the Administration long and hard to get as much as they could for those who wrongfully languish in our nations' prisons and on death row. But for their tenacity and dedication, there would be no relief in sight.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where, believe it or not, the White House, Ashcroft, and two Republican Senators (Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl) remain opposed to it. Leahy and Sensenbrenner today called upon them to get out of the way of the bill's passage.

Here's the official spin, followed by the reality:

The Justice For All Act of 2004 (HR 5107...includes many provisions from a victims’ rights bill that was already passed by the full Senate and incorporates the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act (H.R. 3214/S. 1700). This omnibus legislation enhances the rights and protections for all persons involved in the criminal justice system through two different, but complementary, mechanisms: (1) a new set of statutory victims' rights that are both enforceable in a court of law and supported by fully-funded victims' assistance programs; and (2) a comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure that the true offender is caught and convicted for the crime.

The Senate today passed its version of a bill containing reforms recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Now that bill must be reconciled with H.R. 10, the House version of the bill, which is an abomination and goes far beyond any recommendations of the Commission.

A principle objection by civil liberties and human rights groups is Section 3006 of the bill that allows the U.S. to send immigrants to countries that practice torture. Check out this statement from the ACLU, which describes the provisions of the bill:

We wrote and deleted a post a while ago about Cheney's 'Senator Gone' comment. While Lexis.com has no mention of anyone other than a local Republican party chairwoman making the comment, we later found it via Google in an editorial in a local North Carolina newspaper. Since the deleted post may show up in cached versions, just letting you know.

Cheney's comment: "You're hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone."

Editor and Publisher.com reports that it's debatable whether the paper,a small one in Moore County, North Carolina, published three times a week, is really Edwards hometown paper. As a child, Edwards lived in a town in Moore county. Since adulthood, for decades, he has lived in Raleigh. Further, E & P notes,

The June 25, 2003, editorial also included the following: "Members of the senator's staff point out that Edwards' attendance record this year has been better than the other three Demcoratic senators who are campaigning for president--Joe Lieberman, Richad Gephardt and Bob Graham. And the aides also say none of the votes Edswards missed was close, so his presence on the floor would not have changed the outcome."

The paper explains its comment here.

Atrios notes on a related exaggeration:

Then he bragged about being the presiding officer of the Senate, and being there most Tuesdays, even though he's only acted as the presiding officer on two Tuesdays.

In a report prepared for Congress, another weapons inspector says Saddam had no WMDs before we invaded....and hadn't since the early 1990's.

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons before last year's U.S.-led invasion and its nuclear program had decayed since the 1991 Gulf War, a weapons inspector appointed by the Bush administration said on Wednesday. The assessment contrasted with statements by President Bush before the invasion, when he cited a growing threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the reason for overthrowing President Saddam Hussein.

"I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq," Charles Duelfer, the CIA special adviser who led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said in testimony prepared for the Senate Armed Services Committee obtained by Reuters. He said Iraq's nuclear weapons program had deteriorated since the 1991 Gulf War, but he said Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions.

Avedon Carol of Sideshow says the Washington Post article on fact-checking the debate spins towards Cheney:

And, George Soros realized that Factcheck.com, touted by Cheney last night during the debate, was not a political site. He meant to say Factcheck.Org. Soros is right on top of it and has grabbed FactCheck.com. Go there, and you will be directed to Soros' website bearing his message on why we should not re-elect George Bush.

Update: It may not have been Soros that got the site. Domains don't change hands that fast. It may have been the true owner of the site redirecting Soros' page to its home page. Campaign Extra has more.

Up for Victory is charging that Ralph Nader has taken money for his campaign from several of the funders of the Swift Boat Vets ads.

According to Federal Election Committee records, five major donors who have given $13,500 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to air its attack ads on John Kerry’s military service have also given Nader $7,500.Specifically, Travis Anderson (NJ), Brian Pilcher (CA) and Donald Burns (FL), are three of Nader’s largest donors and each has given him $2,000 (the maximum allowable contribution), while also contributing to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Charles Eckert (CA) and Oliver Grace (NY) have also given to both Nader’s PAC and the swift boat PAC.

Nader has condemned the ads run by this PAC, saying, “It's pretty deplorable that Bush through his proxies is doing this smear,” Nader said. (8/27/2004, A.P., in speech at Tulane University).

So is Bush, through his proxies, supporting Nader? Up for Victory says so.

If Nader wishes to have any credibility left with progressives, he must give back all right wing money and finally acknowledge that his campaign is being used by the Bush/Cheney re-election team.”

John at AMERICAblog has posted a picture of Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter, on stage last night after the debate with her partner Heather (one on each side of the family, they are not standing together.) Should Cheney be praised for his newfound inclusiveness? Yes, and no, according to John.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has been pushing to amend the Constitution to allow persons born outside the U.S. to become President. Yesterday, the Senate held its first hearing on the issue. Many believe this is a political move to allow Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. Is that a reason to defeat the measure?

Half a dozen members of Congress and three constitutional scholars testified in support of the idea, with some telling poignant stories of young children, adopted as infants from foreign countries, being unable to dream of becoming president one day. But the image, mostly unstated, that was hanging over the hearing and the whole nascent congressional movement was the well-sculpted one of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He's been a U.S. citizen since 1983, fulfilling the 20-year requirement Hatch is proposing.

"This hearing would not be complete if the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger were not mentioned at least once," testified Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a close friend of Schwarzenegger's who introduced a companion version of Hatch's proposal last month in the House.

Amending the Constitution should not be done lightly. What is the history behind why the framers included the prohibition? Should we change it? Here's what one scholar said:

The native-born provision was inserted in the Constitution because of fears that a European aristocrat with allegiances to another country could buy his way into control of the United States, said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of law and political science at Yale University. The requirement is outdated and unfair, he said.