Marianne Gingrich, the second ex-wife of Newt Gingrich, has broken her 12 year silence on Newt, in a lengthy interview with Esquire. She characterizes him as a fraud, and not just for his "kick 'em when they're down" dealings with the women in his life, which we all knew about years ago.

My biggest gripe with Newt is still with is 1994 Contract on America.

I still think there's no way he would gamble on his history and run for President. He's probably angling for some other job he can get by appointment.

Since the jury won't be back until Monday, there's nothing to do but speculate on which two of the 24 charges the jury has agreed on, who they pertain to and and what those verdicts are.

This is all tea-leaf reading, since none of us really have a clue. That being said, here's my guess: They have found Rod not guilty of the RICO counts (counts 1 and 2.) As to the remaining counts, related to bribery, extortion and false statements, they are not in agreement. Some would decide guilt, others would not. (As to the wire fraud charges and acts, they said they hadn't started on those yet when they reached their two verdicts.) Here's my current thinking: [More...]

Bump and Update: The jurors in the Blagojevich trial have gone home. They are taking tomorrow off. Thus, no verdict before next week, at the earliest. From their jury note:

"We've deliberated on all acts and counts with the exception of the wire fraud counts. We have reached unanimous agreement on two counts. We have been unable to agree on any of the remaining counts."

****

Earlier I wrote about the unwieldy and confusing jury instructions in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Robert, particularly with respect to the racketeering acts.

Major props to WBEZ political reporter Sam Hudzik, for matching up the alleged acts with the various charges on all the counts and posting a shorthand version, with explanations and the verdict form for each count. [More...]

Via Daphne Eviatar and Carol Rosenberg on Twitter: Lt. Col. Jon Jackson, the sole defense attorney for child soldier Omar Khadr collapsed in court at Guantanamo today while cross examining a witness. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital and is expected to be okay. But the trial has been postponed, at least until tomorrow.

The witness, Retired US Army "Sgt Major D", was part of the assault team that captured Omar Khadr on July 27, 2002. He's a DOD consultant now.

"SgtMajor D" testified he shot Khadr in the back during the fight in which the grenade was thrown.

According to one of Khadr's civilian lawyers (who is not trying the case) Omar was very upset.

I'll update with more details when available.

By popular demand (actually one demand), here's an Open Thread.

Politico:

Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio on Thursday declined to take a firm stance on a newly proposed bill in the state that would require immigrants to carry identification or face a 20-day jail sentence. The bill was unveiled Wednesday by Bill McCollum, the state’s Republican attorney general and a gubernatorial candidate. [. . .] “Arizona is going to want this law,” McCollum said, according to the St. Petersburg Times. “We're better, we're stronger, we're tougher and we're fairer.”

After the Arizona bill passed, Rubio said he had “concerns” that the measure could “unreasonably single out people who are here legally.” But when asked by POLITICO about Rubio’s stance on Florida’s proposal, which is in the same vein as Arizona’s, spokesman Alex Burgos offered a softer stance on the new bill. “He believes the best approach is for the federal government to deal with border security and immigration, and he hopes state efforts like Arizona are a wake-up call for Congress to get its act together,” Burgos said of Rubio.

It's tough to be a Latino Republican - you can't endorse hating yourself, but you can't really reject it either.

Speaking for me only

Via Glenn Reynolds, this Matt Welch piece from the libertarian Reason magazine gave me a chuckle:

The Death of Neoliberalism Pro-market Democrats disappeared just when we needed them most.

[. . .] I come here not to mourn Bill Clinton, nor to give him sole credit for accomplishments that would not have happened without a hostile Republican Congress, but rather to lament the mostly unremarked passing of the political movement that made his economic successes possible. [. . .] Come back, 1990s. All is forgiven.

Freaking hilarious. Is Reason magazine calling for the return of the Clinton tax plan of 1993? The one that raised the taxes of the rich and lowered it for the working poor? The funny thing is too many Dems, in their drive to demonize Hillary Clinton, forgot that Bill Clinton was the last President to raise taxes on the rich and lower them for the working poor. And apparently that amnesia spread to the libertarians at Reason. Too funny.

Speaking for me only

The Judge in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Robert asked the jury this morning for clarification of their note yesterday. Their answer: They are unanimous on two counts, divided on the remainder, and haven't yet reached the wire fraud counts. Via the Chicago Sun Times:

"Your Honor," their note reads. "In response to your communication of 11 August, 2010, we've deliberated on all acts and counts with the exception of the wire fraud counts. We have reached unanimous agreement on two counts. We have been unable to agree on any of the remaining counts."

The Judge wants to respond: [More...]

WaPo:

A Republican plan to extend tax cuts for the rich would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit next year -- and transfer the bulk of that cash into the pockets of the nation's millionaires, according to a congressional analysis released Wednesday.

If you think the deficit is the major issue facing the country, you should oppose this idea.

If you think the federal government needs to spend money to stimulate the economy, this tax cut for millionaires is a very bad idea. Sending the money to state governments so they don't fire policeman, firemen and teachers is the most effective stimulus.

The only reason to support this tax cut for millionaires is if you are in the business of fighting for millionaires - in other words, if you are a Republican.

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum digs out this June 4, 2009 report by the NYTimes Stephen Labaton (when everyone was still optimistic about Dem political fortunes) that illustrates how Democrats lost the 2010 election:

President Obama took the opportunity in a bill-signing ceremony last month to remind Congress “to do what we were actually sent here to do — and that is to stand up to the special interests, and stand up for the American people.” But Mr. Obama did not mention that the measure he was signing, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, was missing its centerpiece: a change in bankruptcy law he once championed that would have given judges the power to lower the amount owed on a home loan.

It had been stripped out three weeks earlier in a showdown between Senate Democrats and the nation’s banks, including many that are getting big government bailouts. [. . .] Throughout it all, the banks took advantage of the Obama administration’s seeming ambivalence. Despite its occasional populist rhetoric, the White House was conspicuously absent from weeks of pivotal negotiations this spring.

[More...]

Via Atrios, Yves Smith:

[T]he cost of money is only one factor in a business’s decision to expand, and outside of financial firms, it’s typically a constraint, not a spur. If you run a dry cleaner, are you going to say, “Gee, my borrowing rate went down a point, I think I’ll open that new store”? The fall in the cost of money would change your action only if it was a critical factor, at the margin, and had restricted you. And for the vast majority of enterprises, the decision of whether to grow or not is based first and foremost on their reading of the environment, which includes the strength of the market for their services, the likelihood of competitor response, whether there are steps they can take to alleviate risk, like securing commitments from prospective customers or tying up critical technology or vendors.

Paul O'Neill:[More...]

While no one other than the participants and judge has seen the entire note the jury sent out in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Wednesday, from the media description, I don't see what's so mysterious about it. The money quotes, first from the Chicago Tribune:

U.S. District Judge James Zagel, reading from a note from jurors, said they had made “a reasonable attempt” after deliberating 11 days and had done so “without rancor.”

The jury indicated it wanted to know what happens if it cannot agree on a unanimous decision on every count. The panel had matched up specific acts in the case to individual counts and was unclear on what to do next, the note said. “What is the next logical step?” the jury asked in its note. [my emphasis]

From the Chicago Sun Times:

Separately, one defense lawyer said that jurors also indicated they couldn't reach a conclusion on counts involving a "specific act."

My take: The jury matched up some, but not all acts with counts. It sounds to me like the jury is unable to resolve the two RICO (racketeering)counts (one charging substantive RICO and the other charging conspiracy to commit RICO.) The RICO counts require the jury to find Rod Blagojevich committed (or for conspiracy, agreed that some member of the conspiracy would commit)at least two acts of racketeering, and they have to be unanimous on at least two acts. [More..]