We had the opportunity to sit down with Gary Hart for thirty uninterrupted minutes today and discuss his recent San Francisco foreign policy speech, and the concerns of some, including the hosts of CNN's Crossfire, that one line of the speech might be construed to be anti-semitic. We've investigated, here's our report. Hart's on solid footing with us. You can decide for yourselves.

First, context is everything. Read the whole speech.

Here's what Gary Hart said:

"We must not let our role in the world be dictated by ideologues with their special biases and agendas, by militarists who long for the clarity of cold war confrontation, by think tank theorists who grind their academic axes, or by Americans who too often find it hard to distinguish their loyalties to their original homelands from their loyalties to America and its national interests."

Is there anyone out there in the blogistan who believes the reverse of that proposition is true? If so, we'd like to hear from you. We certainly don't.

Second, Gary Hart doesn't talk in code. If he had a problem with a particular group, he'd come out and say it. That's his nature and that's how he has conducted himself during his 30 years of public service.

If you read Hart's speech, which again, is available here, you will see that its focus was not War with Iraq, although Hart certainly mentioned it. The speech was about American's foreign policy role in the 21st century. He sets forth the principles he believes should guide our foreign policy – for the purpose of establishing a framework within which policy can be made. He says that foreign policy is no longer the province of experts -- that the engagement of the American people is necessary in the discussion. "In the 21st century, the veil separating the foreign policy priesthood from the people must be removed...our policy toward the world must be the policy of the American people."

Hart says he was not singling out any one group. He had no specific group in mind. He was referring to any group with special interests, including any group that might put its concerns and feelings for the country of its heritage over the best interests of America. His point was that where there is a difference between what is in America's best interest and what is in the best interests of the homeland or country of origin of another group, America's interest must come first in shaping foreign policy.

Hart was not referring to Jewish Americans. He was not referring to the War with Iraq. He was talking about America's long-term foreign policy role in the 21st century. His comment applies equally to Cuban, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Greek and Turkish -American citizens. He was talking about all Americans, wherever we come from.

Hart has been a strong supporter of Israel for over 30 years. His voting record in the Senate confirms this. That's not to say he's never been critical of Israel's settlement policy as a barrier to peace, but a large segment of Israelis and Jewish-Americans share that view.

His speech was about America's long-term foreign policy role–and the principles that should guide it. One of those principles is that Americans must become engaged in the discussion, so that America's role in the world does not become dictated by ideologues-- any ideologues -- who would put their special biases or agendas ahead of what is best for America.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has overriden his local prosecutors and insisted on seeking the death penalty in 28 cases so far. In 26 of the cases, the defendant was black or hispanic.

It appears Ashcroft is moving towards a nationalized death penalty.

If Ashcroft has his way, more federal juries in more states will be asked to sentence defendants to death, said Kevin McNally, an attorney with the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project. He calls it the "nationalization" of the death penalty. "What I mean by that is the federal government is bringing the death penalty to states where it is not an ordinary part of the fabric of the criminal justice system," said McNally, a Frankfort, Ky., attorney who has assisted in the Denis case. "They're bringing it to states where it's abolished, and states that haven't abolished it -- like New York and Connecticut -- but where it's used infrequently."

One good statistic: The Government has lost in 2 out of every 3 cases in which it has sought the death penalty since its reinstatement in 1976.

Two federal prisoners have been executed since the return of capital punishment in federal cases -- Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and drug kingpin Juan Garza, both in June 2001.

Still, Ashcroft's policy represents a disturbing trend, to say the least. Of Ashcroft's 28 overrides, 8 have occurred in the past two weeks. The fact that he is bringing death penalty prosecutions to federal courts in states in which voters have decreed there shall not be a death penalty is particularly odius.

Daily Kos reports the Estrada filibuster is on. Here's the details so far.

The AP is reporting it has reviewed thousands of documents that link Timothy McVeigh to the white supremacists at the Elohim City Compound, and that some of the documents were not disclosed to the defense before his trial.

The Government's position, of course, is that the documents don't change anything--they still believe McVeigh and Nichols acted alone.

Stephen Jones, McVeigh's chief counsel, had this to say yesterday:

"They short-circuited the search for the truth," attorney Stephen Jones said. "I don't doubt Tim's role in the conspiracy. But I think he clearly aggrandized his role, enlarged it, to cover for others who were involved."

We're not sure. Here's what we had to say about it a few weeks ago.

We've always disagreed with the Government's insistence there was no John Doe 2--and we remain skeptical of its explanation for the extra leg found in the bombing--but we're still a ways from concluding that white supremacists or middle eastern terrorists were involved in the OKC bombing.

"Jurors convicted Clara Harris of murder today for running over her husband outside a Clear Lake-area hotel on July 24 after finding him with his mistress. Harris faces the possibility of life in prison but if the jury next decides it was a crime of sudden passion, she could receive a much lighter sentence, and probation is possible on any sentence less than 10 years."

Update: Skillful defense couldn't prevent a guilty verdict.

The Sentencing Project's new report, Big Prisons, Small Towns: Prison Economics in Rural America, is available. The report finds that rural prisons produce no positive economic benefits for local communities. The AP article on the report is here.

The Government has provided a rare update on the Guantanamo detainees. Of course they are trying to put the best possible spin on it, but we're having a hard time buying into some of their statements.

The Government has been offering "rewards" to the prisoners. If the prisoners want to "eventually" return to their native countries, they are told they should be good and earn the rewards. The rewards range from a soccer ball to an extra blanket to "an extra serving of rice and lentils for the feast of Eid-al-Adha, a Muslim holiday."

The Government says there are 650 detainees from 41 countries at Guantanamo Bay in single-man cells. Over 58% have received one of the 23 available rewards. Only 6% have cooperated with the Government. Yet a Government spokesman says, "We believe the rewards and penalties program has helped us increase the amount and quality of the information."

The Government refuses to answer questions about the rash of suicide attempts by the detainees. Five of them tried to hang themselves in the last month. One is still hospitalized in serious condition. (He was probably one of the two of the 650 who have been allowed to phone home.)

Amnesty International asks a good question. Is it only rewards being handed out, or is the lack of cooperation being punished by more than withholding of rewards? Is the "rewards system" connected to the suicide attempts? The Government's answer is this: "Military officials say penalties amount to an absence of rewards."

If in over a year, only six percent of the 650 detainees have cooperated, and no criminal charges have been brought against any of them, despite forced interrogations of all of them without counsel, why can't they go home now? How much is it costing us to continue to house them? At what point does the government admit they are not Al Qaeda terrorists and have no relevant information to share?

Former Vanity Fair and Talk Magazine editor Tina Brown just closed a deal for her own talk show on CNBC--a "roundtable" she calls it. She praises Tim Russert and disses George Stephanopoulos.

Tina has her own take on liberal media--we wonder if she's read Eric's book, anyway, here's what she says:

Being a liberal on political TV right now would be a unique selling proposition. Almost all the other talk shows tilt unapologetically rightwards. Conservative-leaning cable talk shows get better ratings, but the propaganda from the other side is that it’s not because they have more viewers, it’s just that they stay tuned longer. CNN viewers watch for an average of about 14 minutes. The typical right-wing talk show fan hangs in there for more than 20 minutes. It seems that CNN viewers watch for news while conservative talk viewers watch for entertainment. They get their jollies nodding along with potato-faced white guys with an up-yours point of view.

She doesn't much care for most of the debate-style cable news shows, likening their hosts to Leopold and Loeb, but she loves Larry King.

The name of the show? She didn't say, only that it will have her name in the title. Anyway, we wish her well. She was a tremendously successful publisher, she knows everyone, how can she lose?

Atrios reports that one of the new powers Ashcroft is seeking in Patriot Act II is expanded autopsy powers on U.S. victims of terrorism.

But tucked inside the 87-pages of revisions is new authority for the Justice Department to authorize autopsies to learn more about terrorist perpetrators.

"Autopsies of the victims of terrorist attacks and other deadly crimes, as well as other persons, can be an effective way of obtaining information about the perpetrators," according to the recommendations drafted by the Justice Department Office of Legislative Affairs. "In addition to revealing the cause of death, autopsies sometimes enable law enforcement to retrieve forensic evidence (such as bomb fragments) from the deceased body."

The department suggests that Congress, "create federal authority, in the attorney general, to conduct autopsies when necessary or appropriate in the conduct of federal criminal investigations. This authority is not limited and may be delegated to others."

MyDD says Estrada is on hold and won't be seeing a vote in the Senate. Democrats say they have 44 of their 48 votes agreeing to a filibuster. They only need 41.

Update: Here's more.

If you are a juror in the case, or live with one, please do not read this:

The Jury is out in the Clara Harris murder trial. In closings, the DA, as is typical, told the jurors not to consider their sympathy for Mrs. Harris. And how's this for a derogatory, sexist comment about women--coming from a female DA, no less--

"For heaven's sake, a man is cheating on you, you do what every wife in this county does: Take him to the cleaners...

Excuse us? We hope DA Mia Magness lost every female on the jury with that comment.

Defense attorney George Parnham argued the killing was an accident, Mrs. Harris didn't have murder on her mind when she and her stepdaughter went to the Hearbreak Motel where David Harris and his office worker were carrying on.

We always thought a nice touch in this case was that the Hearbreak Motel at which David Harris carried on with his office worker was the same hotel at which he and Clara Harris had their wedding reception. Talk about a cad!

Here are the options the jury has to weigh:

Judge Carol Davies told jurors today that they can acquit Harris if they have a reasonable doubt, or they can convict her of murder, which can bring a life sentence. The two other options jurors received were convicting her of manslaughter, which can mean two to 20 years in prison, or criminally negligent homicide, which carries as little as 180 days in jail or as much as 10 years in prison, depending on whether the jury finds she used the car as a deadly weapon. Any punishment less than 10 years means probation is possible.

We predict a compromise verdict --manslaughter. Texas has jury sentencing, so it will be interesting to see what sentence they impose on her should they convict her. Her crying throughout the trial and the support she has from her in-laws (another odd twist to the case) should help her there.

Update: The jury deliberated seven hours today without a verdict and is sequestered.

"A co-pilot removed from a Delta Air Lines flight after security screeners said they smelled liquor on his breath was acquitted Wednesday of operating a plane under the influence of alcohol."

"Gary A. Schroeder, 42, of Yorktown was found innocent of the misdemeanor charge by General District Judge Norman A. Thomas. While evidence showed Schroeder apparently had been drinking, there was no evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol, Schroeder said. "