CBS: No Criminal Charges Likely in AIG Collapse

By GottaLaff

The the criminal case against the so-called "the Man who Crashed the World" has apparently "hit a brick wall." They can't prove that he lied about AIG's financial problems.

I've heard many a lawyer say that proving a lie is not easy. This proves that proving is not always prove-able.

Well, you know what I mean.

Why must brick walls so often get between us and the (alleged) thugs?

CBS NEWS has learned that former AIG executive Joseph Cassano - the prime focus of the investigation into its collapse - will meet with Department of Justice attorneys next week in what will likely be an end to the two year criminal investigation into the company.

Now back to the Tiger Woods coverage already in progress.

Group challenges phone companies’ wiretapping immunity

By GottaLaff

The BushCo wiretaps are being challenged again. Good:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is appealing, on behalf of several plaintiffs, a June federal court decision that upheld legislation that protects the companies, who acted without court authorization, from being prosecuted. [...]

EFF argues that the legislation is "unconstitutional" because it grants "the attorney general the unconstrained power to decide whether to nullify existing federal and state law governing these actions." [...]

EFF, a privacy group that focuses on civil rights on the Internet, is working with the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 46 plaintiffs to challenge the legislation.

After 9/11, it was "anything goes". BushCo used fear tactics to advance their greedy little power grabs, secrecy, and otherwise criminal and unconstitutional agenda at every opportunity they had.

And that included eavesdropping on fellow Americans.

Not-$enator Coleman'$ long$hot court battle

By GottaLaff

One word: GiveitupTokerNorm:

Republicans know they’ll need every last dollar in next year’s campaign if they want to keep Democrats from topping 60 seats in the Senate.

So with potentially better Senate investments on the horizon, is it worth continuing to pour money into Norm Coleman’s long-shot Senate campaign if the race keeps going on and on? [...]

Over the past three months, the NRSC spent nearly $1 million to pay his legal bills, and since Election Day, Republican senators and the RNC have pumped in hundreds of thousands of dollars more. Last Thursday, the Federal Election Commission opened the door for Coleman to use campaign cash to defend himself in two lawsuits unrelated to the current recount battle — putting the former senator in the position of asking his GOP donors to pick up more of his hefty legal tab. [...]

By continuing to support Coleman’s bleak chances ahead of a bruising election year, Democrats gleefully think that the GOP is wasting precious 2010 resources. [...]

There is an increasing expectation within GOP circles in Washington and Minnesota that Coleman is going to call it quits if he loses before the state Supreme Court, even though sources in Coleman’s camp insist he won’t make up his mind until he sees the court’s decision. [...]

“If you say ‘Well, you can pick up a seat in Minnesota for an extra million dollars’ — that’s a real bargain,” said Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), who is up for reelection in 2010.

A million smackeroos is a real bargain? Who'd be stupid enough to cough up a wad of bills for a loser like Norm Coleman? What shriveled-brain blind supporter would publicly admit something like that?

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he had no qualms donating money to Coleman’s cause — and he says he’ll keep backing Coleman even if he takes the case to either to the U.S. Supreme Court or federal district court. “I’m going to back Norm whatever he does,” Graham said.

Alrighty then, that answered that.

It's almost like Toker Norm is... oh I dunno... lost. Meandering aimlessly... waiting for some enormous gaggle of fools to rescue him....

“It’s a great American tradition if you got one sailor lost in the sea, you send the entire Navy to go find him,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

At least Normy can focus all of his attention on this one court battle. I mean, it's not like he has any other legal debts or controversial issues to contend with, because, you know, that would be really embarrassing.

Hm? Whazzat?

Oh:

But even as he pushes his recount challenge into its eighth month, Coleman faces other sticky legal problems unrelated to his election. He’s monitoring two lawsuits alleging that a longtime associate, Nasser Kazeminy, improperly steered some $100,000 to Coleman through his wife’s place of employment.

Lo. $er.

NBC: Obama will seek to delay detainee photo release

By GottaLaff

Can we get back to transparency, please?

Defense and military officials tell NBC News that President Obama will seek to delay the release of hundreds of photos that reportedly depict the abuse of prisoners by U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...]

Obama decided he "did not feel comfortable" with the release and last week instructed his legal team to fight it in court, said an official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the president's decision had not yet been made public.

Obama has instructed administration lawyers to make the case that "the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court," the official said.

"The president strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan," the official said.

But... but... that's what the Rushpublic line is.

The official said that Obama believes the actions depicted in the photos should not be excused and fully supports the investigations, prison sentences, discharges and other punitive measures that have resulted from them. But, the official said, the president does not believe that publicizing the actions in such a graphic way would be helpful.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq met with Obama at the White House Tuesday to ask the administration not to release the photos. Defense officials say Odierno is "vehemently opposed" to the release because he fears it could create a widespread "backlash" against military forces in both war zones.

According to one official, "It would put a bull's-eye on the backs of our forces."

Bingo. There he is. There's the Rushpublic who had the ear of the president. Newsflash: The bull's-eyes are already in place, and the backlash already exists, as it has since BushCo created it.

According to military officials many of the photos are similar to the infamous prisoner abuse photos out of Abu Ghraib prison, but some of these photos reportedly include mug shots of prisoners who appear to have been badly beaten during their capture or interrogation.[...]

The American Civil Liberties Union has sought the release of the photos and won a lawsuit against the U.S. government before the federal appeals court in New York. The only legal option left to the government was to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Instead the Obama administration had earlier made the decision to end the appeals and release the photos. [...]

"The decision to suppress the photos is profoundly inconsistent with the promise of transparency that President Obama has made time after time," ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said.

UPDATE:
Robert Gibbs says he wasn't pressured by the military. Odierno was informed by Obama, not vice versa. I may have to take back what I posted above.

Gibbs:

"The president believes that the release will provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigation. ... They are part of the potential evidence... Every time a photo is taken, it could be released... there's the disincentive. ... The photos provide a sensationalistic aspect... Photos were taken by Pentagon... If it was mandatory release, it would provide a disincentive...

Chuck Todd: Sensationalistic? Vs. transparency...?

Gibbs:

The existence of the cases are on the DoD website. So the photos aren't evidentiary.... They only pose harm.

Existence of detainee abuse not denoted by photos.

Q: Harms way argument made by Cheney re: torture memos.

Gibbs:

The existence of enhanced techniques were previously noted by BushCo speeches, autobiographies, etc. Not because of the photos.... Why do you do a graphic on CNN? The photos don't add to the understanding that [torture] happened. Pres. doesn't belief the release of photos illuminates the existence of the investigation.

Q: Is that his role? Whether it illuminates?

Gibbs:

No, as commander in chief, he feels it poses a threat thru the illumination of whatever, and he can make a legal argument that he doesn't believe was made.

Q: What is the new argument?

Gibbs:

Not seeking an exception for law enforcement... [Cell went off, Gibbs makes the reporter give it to him, to wild laughs and applause. Gibbs leaves with phone, comes back] The illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing. [Another phone goes off... laughter... Gibbs collects it. The reporter takes the call and walks off, to laughter]. The specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops, security, hasn't fully been put in front of court. Will seek a stay... [Another phone went off...] Geez, put 'em on vibrate!

Q: Investigation?

Gibbs:

Senate Intel Committee is the venue ... that possesses ability to conduct an investigation, that's the appropriate place for an investigation. But the photos don't ADD to the fact that the cases are being looked into.

Q: Knoller: How is this consistent with what he said about standard of openness?

Gibbs:

Pres. made this determination as commander in chief, to protect our men and women in harm's way. ... The existence of the photos isn't the only thing that denotes the existence of an investigation. It's documentation of abuse that was being investigated. He doesn't think the existence, publicly, of the photos, adds to that.

Q: Was it the President's idea?

Gibbs:

Pres. didn't think the case being made was effective enough. The meeting he had was to inform of the way the case was being handled, that they'd make a different argument than they had made.

Q: How will he explain this?

Gibbs:

Compare to a murder case. Is it more important to show a picture of the crime scene?

And then my phone rang and I missed the rest. But I got most of the aggressive questioning and most of the answers.

Saudi judge refuses to annul 8-year-old's marriage

By GottaLaff

Outrage Factor: Off the charts:

A Saudi judge has refused for a second time to annul a marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man, a relative of the girl told CNN. [...]

The relative said the judge, Sheikh Habib Al-Habib, "stuck by his earlier verdict and insisted that the girl could petition the court for a divorce once she reached puberty." The family member, who requested anonymity, added that the mother will continue to pursue a divorce for her daughter.

The case, which has drawn criticism from local and international rights groups, came to light in December when al-Habib declined to annul the marriage on a legal technicality. The judge ruled the girl's mother -- who is separated from the girl's father -- was not the girl's legal guardian and therefore could not represent her in court, according to Abdullah al-Jutaili, the mother's lawyer.

The girl's father, according to the attorney, arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, who is "a close friend" of his. At the time of the initial verdict, the judge required the girl's husband to sign a pledge that he would not have sex with her until she reaches puberty, al-Jutaili told CNN. The judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court, the lawyer said.

Swell. In the meantime, she is forced to live with this guy, not with her own parents. Her separation from her family at such a young age, and her fear and dread, are enough to damage any child for life, tradition/legal technicality or not.

"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks last January quoted in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."

Al-Sheikh reportedly made the remarks when he was asked during a lecture about parents forcing their underage daughters to marry.

"We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls," he said, according to the newspaper. "We should know that Sharia law has not brought injustice to women."

Sharia law is Islamic law. Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism.

CNN was unable to reach government officials for comment.

To reiterate my point:

Wajeha al-Huwaider, co-founder of the Society of Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia, told CNN that achieving human rights in the kingdom means standing against those who want to "keep us backward and in the dark ages."

She said the marriages cause girls to "lose their sense of security and safety. Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."

Judges Now Deciding Minnesota Senate Race

By GottaLaff

The mini-series that turned into a maxi-series:

"After seven long weeks, Minnesota's U.S. Senate election trial came down to a debate Friday between following the rules and a notion of common sense," the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

"Now the choice is up to the judges, whose decision will be critical -- if not final -- in eventually naming Minnesota's new U.S. senator."

Nearly everyone involved expects the eventual ruling to be appealed. CQ Politics outlines Norm Coleman's appeal strategy.

Toker Norm will appeal, not because he knows it will make a difference to the eventual outcome, but because he knows it will make a difference in the number of Senate votes until there's a final resolution to this saga.

He also hopes to divert attention from his many legal problems.

Meanwhile, Minnesota is deprived of a U.S. Senator, legislation will be affected, and democracy will suffer.

I can think of several ways to thank him. Please feel free to add your expressions of gratitude in Comments.

GOP dead set against Senator Al Franken

By GottaLaff

Hey! What do Republicans have against comedians? As a former comedy performer myself, I am hurt to the quick. Rejection's not easy, you know... sniffle snurfle:

Having just seen what President Barack Obama can do with 58 Democrats in the Senate, Republicans are more determined than ever to keep him from getting a 59th.

Especially if the 59th is Al Franken.

As we all know, the Coleman-Franken legal battle feels longer than a Sarah Palin run-on sentence. Well, maybe not that long, but I digress:

Which is exactly how Senate Republicans want it. The National Republican Senatorial Committee held a ritzy fundraiser for Coleman in Washington this week, helping him raise the money he needs to keep his legal challenges alive through a trial and then a lengthy legal process if he loses. [...]

The Democrats know how important the seat is — and they accuse the GOP of prolonging Coleman’s legal fight just to keep it empty. [...]

If Franken becomes the 59th senator to caucus with the Democrats, the GOP knows that Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will be able to railroad legislation through the Senate by picking off a single Republican moderate.

And that would be the best punch line ever.