Former liberal-turned-Conservative-turned-liberal "Progressive" again David Corn's Media Matters is a bit of a joke as they daily try to spin every thing Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh say into proof that they're racist, xenophobic and whatever else libs believe as gospel. Check out the list of liberal all-stars that write there and tell me if you think they're unbiased in the least. The fact that Corn wrote a screed against Hillary Clinton that sold tons and then when things started getting tough on the Conservative side wrote a screed against the right says all you need to know about his character and opportunism.

Now they've compiled a breath taking report that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the media is not liberal but leans conservative. The fact that this has been debunked didn't stop the Media Matters folks from wasting time and energy.

The entire piece can be shown wrong by their listing Cokie Roberts, David Broder (who will forever be considered a "centrist" because he attacked the liberal bloggers) and Tom Friedman as "centrists". The only place Tom Friedman looks like a "centrist" is in the New York Times, a paper that runs him twice a week.

Norman Hsu caught in Colorado, according to the San Fran Chronicle:

Authorities said Hsu was taken into custody at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction at 7 p.m. local time. He had been on the lam for almost two days after failing to appear in a Redwood City courtroom Wednesday to surrender his passport.

Hsu was taken off a passenger train at the Grand Junction train station earlier in the day by paramedics who requested a backboard to move him, said Sgt. Lonnie Chavez with the Grand Junction Police Department.

Authorities received a request for medical assistance at the train station at about 11:15 a.m., but the exact nature of Hsu's condition was unclear, Chavez said. Staff at St. Mary's Hospital declined to comment.

Is Hillary Clinton nervous? Perhaps she should be. If Hsu cuts a deal with federal investigators and pleas to violating federal election laws, one thing he could bring to a potential plea bargain is an offer to testify against certain politicians who definitely knew what was going on. Considering the breadth of the Hsu donations, this is beginning to have a certain Jack Abramoff-like smell.

I'm also wondering if we can find out where exactly he's been getting his money. One thing for sure, he won't be able to post bail this time.

Norman Hsu is the gift that keeps on giving, and now it isn't just the money to Democratic campaigns, it's a never ending series of headlines. And now he's skipped another hearing and is currently on the run. Even his lawyers don't know where he is:

Hsu's attorneys say they do not know his whereabouts, and that their client did not surrender his passport.

Hsu turned himself in to authorities last week after more than 15 years on the run from a felony conviction of grand theft. He admitted to defrauding investors of $1 million in a bogus investment scam.

He failed to appear in court for sentencing on that 1991 conviction, a revelation that prompted high profile Democrats -- including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton -- to return thousands of dollars donated by Hsu.

In light of this, I would think it would certainly be appropriate for Hillary and the rest of the Democrats to return all the money from this scam artist, including and especially those that were received from his bundlers, such as the Paws of Los Angeles.

He's not guilty of anything but he's resigning. "I did nothing wrong but I'm leaving." In my book, Larry Craig not guilty of anything but extreme hubris, hypocrisy and lies. He's ashamed of who he is and that's his problem. I'm sorry for him but if I went around being all Puritanical and judgmental, and then lying when caught, I'd expect to be tossed out as well.

David Vitter may be breathing a sigh of relief, but that won't last long. The mood of the country is to throw bums and hypocrites out and provide some leadership, some backbone and stand up to the administration. This applies to both parties. It isn't a question of being squeaky clean but they should be able to meet a higher standard in honesty than most.

Other shoes that may drop: Remember Rep. Bob Ney, who left and is in jail? Well, his staff has been singing and investigators are following the money. The D.C. Madam case is moving along and entire parts of the Justice Department are not cooperating with the Bush administration. High-ranking staffers are leaving the White House in droves. There's a reason Congress is supposed to investigate. It's their purview and part of the archaic notion of checks and balances. The big bombshells are likely to come from high ranking military. There's more to come, watch for it.

CNN is reporting that sources say it's a done deal, no time frame is given. If Larry Craig is to resign, do it today on the Friday before Labor Day when people have a long weekend on their minds.

Idaho has a GOP governor so this may work out well if he appoints a young, energetic Conservative who can establish himself before the next election. Craig is dead in the water regardless of how any investigation turns out and he will be an albatross for the rest of his term. Idaho is never really "in play" anyway but if this were to linger on for too long, it could be.

Update (1410): Or maybe not. ABC is saying his aids are denying he'll retire. That's bad news for the GOP if he's hanging around. Stay tuned.

Last week there were some initial reports of literally tons of weapons gone missing in Iraq. We've already had reports of missing billions from contractors, the million dollar postage fee for two washers (yes, two washers) and the no-bid contracts leading the sorry list of corruption and Republican cronyism. But losing tens of thousands of weapons, what the heck? Who was in charge?

Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi and American forces, according to American officials. The officials said it amounted to the largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here.

Turns out none other than Gen. David Petraeus was in charge.

The inquiry has already led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected, the officials said. One of the investigations involves a senior American officer who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005, American officials said Monday. There is no indication that investigators have uncovered any wrongdoing by General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, who through a spokesman declined comment on any legal proceedings.

That's right no crime found yet but some very close ties and no matter what, it happened on his watch. It's also important to look for clues in articles like this and there's one here

But now, American officials said, part of the criminal investigation is focused on Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, who reported directly to General Petraeus and worked closely with him in setting up the logistics operation for what were then the fledgling Iraqi security forces.

This is just another in a serious of blunders, incompetency, and outright crookedness that is happening due to this administration's ignoring the laws and lining the pockets of not only their corporate friends but apparently giving arms away to people who are using them against our own troops. Perhaps we don't want to see how FUBAR this war is or perhaps we're just too scared to acknowledge it. We need to restore the Constitution, the balance of powers and Congressional oversight.

So it's true: Gonzales is out, and my theory about a trial balloon is a bust as well. Trial balloons usually take a little longer. Ultimately Gonzales is not out because he fired some U.S. attorneys, or anything else he did or did not do in his official capacity. He's out because he got caught lying to senators. You don't do that and live to tell about it. The practical effect is that you have many very angry senators, and some of them are just on your side.

Nancy Pelosi says this about the potential new AG:

The nominee must also pledge to cooperate with ongoing congressional oversight into the conduct of the White House in the politicization of federal law enforcement. Hearings on the nominee will provide Congress with another opportunity to examine the new, flawed FISA law and will aid in our efforts to improve it.

So the president's nominee must promise to cooperate with Democrats on their agenda. I think we have some insight here as to why Bush has resisted a new confirmation battle for so long. It should be interesting, but wait!

HT to Volokh, the buzz of the day is that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has run out of luck and time.

The buzz among top Bushies is that beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales finally plans to depart and will be replaced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Why Chertoff? Officials say he's got fans on Capitol Hill, is untouched by the Justice prosecutor scandal, and has more experience than Gonzales did, having served as a federal judge and assistant attorney general.

Of course there's very little to go on, but this smells very much like a trial balloon, a deliberate leak from the White House, so it may be true. The problem of course is that there is only about a year and a half left for the Bush administration, and a lengthy confirmation battle might chew up a lot of that time. If the administration is serious, they will want someone that can be confirmed post-haste.

Or this could all be a big red herring. So far, President Bush has given absolutely no indication that he was open to replacing his attorney general.

From CNN.com: First Sen. Patrick Leahy told the Cheney team that they had until July 18 to produce documents. Team Cheney requested and was granted an extension to August 1. Then another extension to August 20.

The White House contends it never said senators could have the documents by then.

And now they're offering to have talks about what documents Leahy might get sometime after labor day. Anyone else get the idea that the Cheney team is playing games with Patrick Leahy and not taking this seriously?

Heh. If there weren't serious stakes involved the Leahy subpoenas would be a farce. Oh wait, this is about whether listening and spying on terrorists is constitutional. Yep, it's a farce.

It would seem things are starting to fall into place (but don't expect traditional media to get there in time to catch the train). First, it's relevant to understand how things unfold in D.C. and Congress. As you know, there has been a fair amount of attention directed at the meeting which took place in former Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room. Who visited? What was said, and what they were trying to get him to approve? Congress asked FBI Director Mueller what he knew of the matter, and boy did he ever respond.

Read what he sent Congress. It's important to follow the sequence of events and understand that the VP has been involved in this from the beginning, and that there is more news to come. Former Acting AG Comey and FBI Director Mueller could well end up as the people willing to stand up and tell the truth. Importantly, Mueller did not have to reveal the other meetings not involving Comey or Ashcroft, and to have done so here generates many more questions than it answers.

Will Congress follow the trail Mueller has left? One would hope so. They have a constitutional duty to fulfill. This whole administration boils down to 'Take Us at Our Word' and 'If You Question Our Story, You are Unpatriotic'. Congress is supposed to question, supposed to provide oversight and accountability to the process. It's their job, it's why we have the 'balance of powers.' For the first six years of George Bush's rule there was only a rubber stamp Congress. The American people deserve the truth. Has the Constitution been compromised? Is there a vast eavesdropping, wiretapping, data mining program that is being used to spy on political opponents and activists? Do we understand that an unfettered, free to do whatever they dream of Administration is not how a democracy works?

This is not good:

A criminal investigations report says several U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees are accused of aiding Islamic extremists with identification fraud and of exploiting the visa system for personal gain.

The confidential 2006 USCIS report said that despite the severity of the potential security breaches, most are not investigated "due to lack of resources" in the agency's internal affairs department.

The USCIS is a division of Homeland Security and is tasked with immigration and naturalization petitions as well as refugees and asylum requests. The fact that they are not investigated because of a lack of resources is a cop out.

They could (and should) coordinate with other agencies within DHS to conduct a proper, thorough investigation and bring those who have broken the law up on charges. Why haven't they? Because, just like every other federal agency, they protect their own so that the Department Heads don't look bad.

It's been amusing to me to see global warming theory supporters take as gospel anything that supports their argument without questioning the veracity of the data. In other words, they are doing what atheists and non-Creationist's say about religion. Evangelicals, the bane of liberals everywhere, are constantly berated for their non-bending belief creation is true and eschew any scientific data to the contrary. The global warming supporters are doing the exact same thing and by doing so are destroying what science is -- proving negatives instead of proving positives.

In that mindset, check this out:

One of the most cited and used historical surface temperature databases is that of NASA/Goddard's GISS. This is not some weird skeptics site. It is considered one of the premier world temperature data bases, and it is maintained by anthropogenic global warming true believers. It has consistently shown more warming than any other data base, and is thus a favorite source for folks like Al Gore. These GISS readings in the US rely mainly on the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) which is a network of about 1000 weather stations taking temperatures, a number of which have been in place for over 100 years.

...Anyway, McIntyre suspected that one of these adjustments had a bug, and had had this bug for years. Unfortunately, it was hard to prove. Why? Well, that highlights one of the great travesties of climate science. Government scientists using taxpayer money to develop the GISS temperature data base at taxpayer expense refuse to publicly release their temperature adjustment algorithms or software (In much the same way Michael Mann refused to release the details for scrutiny of his methodology behind the hockey stick). Using the data, though, McIntyre made a compelling case that the GISS data base had systematic discontinuities that bore all the hallmarks of a software bug.

To sum up, the data that was used to back up many global warming arguments was faulty and the data they used is false. The new data shows that three of the top ten hottest years were indeed in the last decade, but most were in the 1930's.

In all the hew and cry over the recent FISA vote to give expedited surveillance powers to the discredited AG Alberto Gonzales (so he could authorize wiretaps, etc without having to go to a FISA court), something important has been missed. In fact, it's possible the vote was designed to split the Dems and create a false scenario that Dems don't want to protect this country as a bonus. But the real reason was to distract attention from the "rest of the story."

This administration has been spying extensively on Americans collecting all kinds of information most of which has nothing to do with overseas communication or the 'war on terror' and much more to do with expanding the unitary executive (aka dictator). How do we know this?

Recall former acting AG Comey's testimony We heard about the hospital scene but what else is in that testimony? Recall Comey testifying that the administration was involved in something so illegal that Comey and at least eight other high-ranking Administration officials were prepared to resign had the activity continued. Let's think about that. High level career Justice Department officials don't threaten to resign over nothing.

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that a former Justice Department lawyer is being investigated as the leaker of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program to the New York Times:

FBI agents searched the home of former Justice Department lawyer Thomas Tamm last week in an effort to determine who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media, Newsweek magazine reported Sunday, citing two anonymous legal sources. The agents, who had obtained a classified search warrant, took Tamm's desktop computer, two laptops belonging to his children and some of Tamm's personal files, said Newsweek, which granted anonymity to the two sources because they did not want to be identified talking about an open case. Tamm left the department last year. He had worked in the department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, a secretive unit that oversees surveillance of terrorist and espionage targets, according to Newsweek.

Doing a very quick search at Opensecrets.org, we find the following information about political donations that Mr. Tamm made:

I have to take exception to David's post about this morning's Washington Post article, U.S. Attorney Became Target After Rebuffing Justice Dept. Although I loath to defend Alberto Gonzales, this article was designed to elicit the exact reaction that David came out with this morning. He's in good company - the first sentence in the post on the article at MSNBC's First Read blog states "An unbelievable accusation against the Justice Department in today's Washington Post".

I was going to write on this, even before reading David's post, primarily because I thought the article was so misleading. The crux of the story is not that the Justice Department attempted to derail the OxyContin case, but that Justice contacted the U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case, John L. Brownlee, to tell him to slow down and not to settle yet! Brownlee ignored the advice, and settled anyway.

What the article fails to mention (because it would put the whole affair in a different light) is that the settlement prevented the filing of criminal charges against the officials of the company, which was the purpose of the entire FDA/Justice Department investigation. The Brownlee settlement allowed criminals involved in the deaths of over 200 people to walk free. That's reason enough to slow settlement negotiations down, as someone at Justice attempted to do. It is true that as a result of the settlement the defendants were fined a huge amount of money. However, last I checked, choosing to pay a fine was not one of the options that a defendant can choose when he or she is prosecuted for criminally causing the death of someone, especially when the deaths number in the hundreds. Based on that alone, the Justice Department was right to try to slow down Brownlee. And right to fire him.