Hectic day for me. No blogging.

Open Thread.

Matt Yglesias writes:

Henry Blodget has an intelligent article arguing that Bank of America may soon be in need of another bailout, and proposing a Swedish-style nationalization as an alternative. He lays it all out and it’s pretty compelling.

That said, I’m not sure that any of the underlying problems with the early 2009 version of this idea have actually been resolved. [. . .] Blodget['s] proposal, however, is for Geithner to “set a ‘trigger price’ for Bank of America stock” that is kept secret from the public and from Bank of America. Then if the price if breached, Treasury will nationalize the bank and do various things. Nowhere does Blodget note that this would be illegal. My read of the views inside the Treasury Building is that they think illegal seizures of private property would have undesirable impacts.

Consider it your daily reminder that in the American system of government, things generally require coordinated action between the executive branch and Congress to happen. What do you think the prospects are for timely congressional action on a new bank nationalization program? Not good. So we’ll muddle through.

I'm not sure on the legality of the proposal, but consider this proposal regarding Bank of America:

Really? An 5.9 earthquake on the east coast? How odd. Hope everyone's okay.

A 5.9 magnitude earthquake centered northwest of Richmond, Va., shook much of Washington, D.C., and was felt as far north as New York City and Rhode Island.

The quake sent hundreds of people spilling into the street a block from the White House, with other buildings evacuated in North Carolina and tremors felt as far away as New York City.

The heart of the quake apparently was Mineral, Va., in Louisa County. And I just read Colorado had an earthquake last night -- the largest one since 1967. It was in the southern part of the state, near New Mexico.

I used Scott Lemieux as a whipping boy yesterday, and was not totally fair about it. Lemieux is a smart good guy so I think I should try to be fair and link to his reaction:

[W]orking backward from my clearly stated position, he seems to be saying that we shouldn’t care about foreign policy and security policy (where presidential power is dominant or near-dominant), the appointment power, the enforcement of legislation, the ability to veto legislation, the power to set the agenda, and the real (if subordinate) power to influence domestic policy all don’t matter! I disagree — I think this stuff matters a great deal, and personally plan to follow the next presidential election with substantial interest.

That's fair tit for tat. I did misrepresent his position and of course he is paying me back by doing the same to me. I do think we have a fundamental disagreement on the power of the President on domestic policy. And I think he severely underestimates how important domestic policy is in a Presidential election. In short, I do not think his argument on Presidential weakness on domestic policy, particularly the economy, is going to cut it politically. I think it is wrong as a question of fact and I know it will not work as a question of politics.

Speaking for me only

Homeland Security has begun its review of 300,000 cases of undocumented residents eligible for removal (deportation) and giving reprieves to a limited few.

Under the policy, immigration authorities will use powers of prosecutorial discretion in existing law to suspend the deportations of most immigrants who, although they have committed immigration violations (which generally are civil offenses), have not been convicted of crimes.

In particular, officials will look to halt deportations of longtime residents with clean police records who came here illegally when they were children, or are close family of military service members, or are parents or spouses of American citizens.

The cases will be examined individually, with removals being canceled for those who fit the guidelines: [More..]

Busy day ahead.

Open Thread.

The Manhattan District Attorney's office has filed a 25 page motion asking the court to dismiss all charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. You can read it here.

“The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant,” the papers state. “If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so.”

DSK's lawyers issued this statement: [More...]

Scott Lemieux, with assists from Jon Chait and the 2008 Ezra Klein. Yes, the usual suspects.

Here's what's weird to me about this - the continued argument against a straw man - the nonexistent argument that the President can do whatever he wants - ignores the fact that the President is the least relevant person in the country on domestic policy - except for everyone else.

Can a President do it by himself? Of course not. But a President can lead the conversation where he wants the policy discussion to go. Like say, deficit reduction. And he has been known to have some political power as well.

At this point, the discussion is just plain ridiculous. In any event, since I do think that who is the President matters, I'll continue to try and explain why I think you should vote for the reelection of President Obama, despite his shortcomings, ESPECIALLY on domestic policy and the economy. The usual suspects will in due course, I imagine, drop their defensive crouch on Obama's behalf and start arguing what Obama might be able to do on domestic policy in a second term. I hope so at least.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias writes about this shilling piece by Harold Ford and John Sununu for the telecom "grassroots organization" Broadband for America. Matt points out that the "op-ed" piece makes no sense.

I'm more interested in what the telecoms think they get out of subsidizing Ford and Sununu. It's one thing to use them as conduits to pay make contributions to Congress folk. But to "shift public opinion?" Harold Ford? John Sununu? You gotta be kidding me.

An efficient market would have ended this gravy train for the likes of Ford and Sununu, who can't persuade anyone of anything. Here's my suggestion to the telecoms to help their bottom line - stop throwing your money away on the likes of Harold Ford and John Sununu.

Speaking for me only

It's about time. Adam Liptak of the New York Times reports the Supreme Court will revisit eyewitness identifications for the first time in 34 years. Mistaken eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions:

Of the first 250 DNA exonerations, 190 involved eyewitnesses who were wrong, as documented in “Convicting the Innocent,” a recent book by Brandon L. Garrett, a law professor at the University of Virginia.

Many of those witnesses were as certain as they were wrong. “There is absolutely no question in my mind,” said one. Another was “120 percent” sure. A third said, “That is one face I will never forget.” A fourth allowed for a glimmer of doubt: “This is the man, or it is his twin brother.”

[More....]

As Dominique Strauss-Kahn's supporters plan his return to France and French politics, and Reuters' reports that officials in France believe Tristane Bannon's charges are unlikely to result in a criminal case, Nafassitou Diallo's lawyers are expected to make a last-ditch effort today or tomorrow for a special prosecutor to take over the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. It has no chance of succeeding.

Mr. Thompson’s motion will almost certainly fail, legal experts said, because under the law his client has no authority to ask for Mr. Vance’s office to be replaced by a special prosecutor. “It’s what we call an A.O.D.: an act of desperation,” said Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School. “She may benefit from a successful prosecution, but she has no legal interest in the prosecution.”

[More...]

What Glenn Said.

Open Thread.