Among the bevy of motions to dismiss filed by lawyers for John Edwards yesterday, the most interesting to the public should be the motion to dismiss for abuse of prosecutiorial discretion and prosecutorial vindictiveness.

Edwards says former U.S. Attorney George Holding, now running for Congress, investigated him searching for a crime, rather than investigating a crime and searching for the culprit. He says Holding was driven by prior animosity and conflict with Edwards and Holding's own political ambitions.

The brief supporting the motion is 32 pages, I've posted the Statement of Facts here and some of the allegations below.

The crux of the argument by Team Edwards (which now consists of Abbe Lowell, James P Clooney, III and Wade Smith -- Gregory Craig and Skadden Arps are no longer on the case) is : [More...]

It's been a busy work day and now I'm headed out to dinner.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Political analyst Larry Sabato writes in the Wall St. Journal that the 2012 presidential election will come down to 7 super-swing states:

Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13).

Why these 7? He says it's all in the electoral college math, the polls don't mean much. Sabato says:

Republicans therefore are a lock or lead in 24 states for 206 electoral votes, and Democrats have or lead in 19 states for 247 electoral votes.

There's a big difference between a lock and a lead so I'm not putting much stock in this. And what if there's a third party candidate on either side? Sabato says that could put a wrench in things. Redistricting (as in Ohio and "Northern Frost Belt" states) ) could also make a difference according to Sabato since the Republicans will gain about 6 electors from it.

Matt Yglesias writes:

[W]hen it’s cheaper to pay for things by borrowing money than by taxing productive activity, it’s pretty foolish not to step up your borrowing. The issue we ought to be debating is whether we should increase borrowing by cutting taxes or increase borrowing by hiking spending.

This is obviously true. It would be the right economic policy to both cut taxes and borrow to increase government spending. But that's not going to happen in our political world of "governments are like households." The choice for Democrats is whether we will cut taxes AND reduce spending. That's why I oppose cutting taxes now - because cutting taxes is less effective stimulus than government spending. A pragmatic view of our choices makes this clear. Yglesias asks "With the House controlled by Republicans and the White House controlled by Democrats, we’d end up compromising on a mix of the two. Instead we’re talking deficit reduction. Why?" Because Democrats, led by the President, played into the deficit scare is why. For some reason, people don't like to say that. But that's the main reason.

Speaking for me only

This is a photo I took of the Monument to Labor sculpture in Omaha, Nebraska, by Matthew Placzek. (larger version here.) It's a tribute to the workers in the labor unions that helped build Omaha and is the second largest labor memorial in the country.

Here's a brief primer on Labor Day.

Have a great holiday, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Last night's episode of "Breaking Bad" was probably the best one yet. The mysterious past of Gus Fring begins to emerge. He left Chile for Mexico in 1986, but there's no record of him since. In the three years he was in Mexico, the cartel considered him dangerous but untouchable. [More...]

John Cole endorses Jon Chait's critique of fantasy (Jon Chait's fantasy) liberal critiques of President Obama. Here's my question - how is President Obama's "pragmatism" working out politically? Is being a one term President part of the "pragmatism?"

How's Obama's Theory of Change working out?

Obama's "theory of change" was aimed at offering the political opposition a choice between cooperation on progressive policy initiatives or self-isolation through obstruction and extremism. In other words, in a country unhappy with partisan gridlock, Republicans would either go along with key elements of a progressive agenda, or shrink themselves into an ever-more-extreme ideological rump that was irrelevant to the direction of the country.

(Emphasis supplied.) One GOP landslide in 2010 and an Obama approval rating of 40 later, it seems difficult to argue that the Theory of Change has worked politically. Will Obama stick to it through the 2012 election and will it be advisable for him to do so? I argue, and I think "liberals" argue, that no, that would be a political mistake. Jon Chait and John Cole seem to be arguing that Obama needs to "stay the course." More . . .

An investigative report by the Associated Press reveals that 35,000 people around the world have been convicted of terror offenses in the past decade. There were more than 119,000 arrests.

That included 2,934 arrests and 2,568 convictions in the United States, which led the war on terror — eight times more than in the decade before.

Many of those arrested were not terrorists but people "put behind bars for waving a political sign or blogging about a protest." Martin Sheinin, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism says:

"Nowadays people are realizing the abuse and even the actual use of counterterror laws is bad for human rights and also bad for actually stopping terrorism."

Mick Jagger extolling the virtues of work, in 1987, on his solo album Primative Cool. Added touch: The World Trade Center Towers are behind the priest, firefighters and joggers as they go under a freeway overpass.

Enjoy your Sunday, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

I think it's going to be a slow-news weekend. And the weather here is too nice to stay indoors. But it's the start of Labor Day weekend, so we need some appropriate music. Here's Bon Jovi with "Work for the Working Man." (Nice touch that the video also features Jack Bauer of "24" since we're on the precipe of the 10 year anniversary of 9/11.)

For those of you online, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: Judge Walton ruled a re-trial is not barred. The double jeopardy bar is too high. He's angry at the Government, and may seek to have the Government pay Clemons' cost if there's a retrial, but he won't bar a retrial. The judge expects the defense to appeal his ruling. A new trial date has been set for April 17. Great tweeting by TJQuinnESPN.

Judge Walton is ruling now. Via TJQuin@ESPN.com:

Walton: and even if it was intentional, I don't think I can conclude that's sufficient that there is a double jeopardy bar.

And then:

Sounds like he's ready to rule trial may continue, but every sentence contradicts the last. Ups and downs are murder.

...Walton: if there's a retrial, he might see if he can force gov't to pay for #Clemens' wasted time from first trial.

...He's speaking as if he has already ruled: the trial may go on.

[More...]

AmericaBlog interviewed Joseph Stiglitz:

Yes, you have heard it all before. It's still true.