SpaceX's Dragon splashes down, ending historic mission

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Dragon space capsule returned to Earth from the International Space Station, capping off its historic mission with a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. NBC's Mark Barger reports.

By Alan Boyle

18

hours

ago

SpaceX's Dragon cargo capsule parachuted to a picture-perfect splashdown in the Pacific Ocean today, ending the first-ever commercial mission to the International Space Station.
The gumdrop-shaped Dragon made history last week as the first U.S. craft to reach the orbital station since last year's retirement of the space shuttle fleet, and it made history today as the first commercial craft to return a shipment from orbit.

SpaceX's 40-year-old billionaire founder, Elon Musk, told reporters that the nine-day space station resupply mission was "like a grand slam" in baseball, and repeatedly voiced joy and surprise at how well it went. "There are a thousand ways that it could fail, so this may sound sort of odd, but when you see it actually work, you're sort of surprised," he said.

The 14.4-foot-high (4.4-meter-high) capsule came down about 560 miles west of Baja California, within a mile of its target point, Musk said. When he saw the first pictures of the craft bobbing in the Pacific, he said his reaction was, "Welcome home, baby. ... It's like seeing your kid come home."

Michael Altenhofen / SpaceX via AP

A photo from SpaceX shows the Dragon spacecraft floating on the surface of the Pacific Ocean about 500 miles west of Mexico's Baja California today.

The demonstration flight will almost certainly earn a go-ahead for SpaceX to start space station resupply missions in earnest under the terms of a $1.6 billion contract with NASA. Alan Lindenmoyer, manager of NASA's commercial crew and cargo program, said a few more items needed to be marked off on the list of criteria, but he voiced nearly as much satisfaction about the results as Musk did.

"It is very easy to see that this satisfies, I believe, 100 percent of those criteria," he said.
The demonstration flight began on May 22 with the Dragon's launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. The mission reached its climax last Friday when astronauts used the space station's robotic arm to pull the Dragon in to its docking port on the the station's Harmony module. On the following day, when station crew members entered the Dragon for the first time, NASA astronaut Don Pettit gushed over its new-car smell.

Over the days that followed, the station's crew unloaded a half-ton of food, equipment, experiments and other supplies — then loaded it back up with more than 1,300 pounds (620 kilograms) of non-essential Earth-bound shipments.

What happened today

Today, astronauts reversed the process they went through last week. The robotic arm pulled the Dragon out from its port and positioned it for release at 5:49 a.m. ET. SpaceX's craft then executed a series of engine burns to take itself out of the station's neighborhood and descend from orbit.

The final engine burn slowed the Dragon's orbital velocity by 100 meters per second (224 mph) — enough to drop it into a fiery descent through the atmosphere. The craft's bottom is coated with a layer of protective material called PICA-X, which SpaceX's engineers say is resilient enough to weather a return to Earth from Mars. At its peak, the heat shield had to endure temperatures in excess of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,650 degrees Celsius).

The suspense built during a few minutes of scheduled communication blackout, but eased when infrared imagery from airplanes circling the projected splashdown site showed the Dragon's parachutes opening. For some observers, the sight of the red-and-white main parachutes sprouting from the capsule sparked a flashback to the days of the Apollo moonshots.

Michael Altenhofen / SpaceX

A photo taken from a recovery ship shows the SpaceX Dragon's parachutes floating in the air after the cargo craft's splashdown.

At 11:42 a.m. ET, SpaceX's controllers confirmed that the craft made a successful splashdown. NASA mission commentator Josh Byerly observed that the Dragon mission "ended like it began — which is, fairly easily."

A pre-positioned flotilla of recovery ships loaded up the Dragon and will bring it back to Los Angeles, near SpaceX's headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif. Some high-value experimental payloads will be express-delivered to NASA within 48 hours; however, the bulk of Dragon's cargo will be taken off after it's transported to SpaceX's rocket test facility in MacGregor, Texas. This particular Dragon won't be reused for another NASA flight, but eventually SpaceX plans to refurbish the capsules as well as rocket stages.

Over the past few years, NASA has paid out about $300 million to help SpaceX develop the Dragon and the Falcon 9 rocket. SpaceX has invested a similar amount of its own capital. This test mission should clear the way for SpaceX to start in on the $1.6 billion station resupply contract, which covers 12 flights through 2015. Musk said he expected the first full-fledged Dragon cargo run to lift off late this summer.

Another company, Virginia-based Orbital Sciences Corp., is working on an alternate commercial delivery system, but that system hasn't yet gone through flight testing.

Grand plans for NASA and SpaceX

Such deliveries are part of NASA's grand plan in the post-shuttle era to transfer space station resupply operations to commercial companies, at what is expected to be a cost far less expensive than space shuttle operations. Theoretically, that would free up money for NASA to concentrate on developing a more powerful heavy-lift rocket and a more capable Orion spacecraft for missions beyond Earth orbit — heading toward asteroids, the moon and eventually Mars.

SpaceX and three other companies — Blue Origin, the Boeing Co. and Sierra Nevada Corp. — are working on spacecraft capable of transporting astronauts to and from the station, and NASA expects those ships to be available for its use by 2017. SpaceX's crew-carrying craft will be an upgraded version of the Dragon that was used for the current cargo mission.

Musk said Dragon 2.0 would have a thruster system capable of making near-pinpoint, helicopter-style landings. That system is due for testing later this year, and could be ready for NASA in three to five years. Such a system would be a must-have for landings on other worlds, Musk noted.

Musk, a dot-com billionaire who made his fortune with PayPal,  founded SpaceX in 2002 as part of his own grand plan to help humans get to Mars and become a "multiplanet species."
Today he noted that the company, known more formally as Space Exploration Technologies Corp., is under contract for about 40 launches, including the 12 planned Dragon cargo missions for NASA as well as additional commercial launches. Just this week, SpaceX announced a deal with Intelsat to put a telecom satellite into geosynchronous transfer orbit using the Falcon Heavy rocket, which is still under development. SpaceX also hopes to win some launch contracts for the Falcon Heavy from the U.S. military.

Some veteran observers of the space effort, including Apollo moonwalkers Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, have been critical of NASA's move toward commercialization. Cernan, for example, complained to Congress that commercial space companies "don't know what they don't know." But Musk said the Dragon mission demonstrated that "commercial spaceflight can be successful." He voiced hope that SpaceX's efforts would inspire a new generation of engineers and explorers.

"We're really at the dawn of a new age of space exploration, where there's going to be a huge amount of opportunity and a lot of exciting things happening," Musk said.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden expressed similar sentiment in a post-splashdown statement: "This successful splashdown and the many other achievements of this mission herald a new era in U.S. commercial spaceflight. American innovation and inspiration have once again shown their great strength in the design and operation of a new generation of vehicles to carry cargo to our laboratory in space. Now more than ever we're counting on the inventiveness of American companies and American workers to make the International Space Station and other low-Earth-orbit destinations accessible to any and all who have dreams of space travel."

More about the mission:

• Scenes from a SpaceX spectacular
• Space milestone sparks high praise
• Next steps in a new space race
• Cosmic Log archive on SpaceX

Sen. Marco Rubio's bill draws charges of hypocrisy from immigrant advocates

Sen. Marco Rubio is pushing a bill to impose stricter rules on child tax credits because the IRS allowed undocumented workers to collect $4.2 billion in credits.

By Alex Leary

Posted on Tuesday, 05.29.12

Tampa Bay Times

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio this month filed a bill aimed at making it harder for undocumented immigrants to claim a child tax credit. The effort drew little attention for good reason: Rubio’s office did not publicize it.
But liberal groups and immigrant advocates noticed and are accusing the Florida Republican of hypocrisy, saying he is hurting innocent children at the same time he pushes a Dream Act alternative that seeks to help children who were brought to the United States illegally, as he says, "through no fault of their own."
"There is no way Sen. Rubio can logically square this proposal that puts low-income U.S.-citizen children in the crosshairs with his professed desire to provide ’humanitarian’ relief to ’blameless’ undocumented youth," reads a piece by the liberal Center for American Progress. "This attack on the child tax credit appears to be a calculated attempt by Sen. Rubio to demonstrate his commitment to ’legality’ and his willingness to crack down on ’illegal immigrants.’ But in his zeal to burnish his hardline bona fides with conservatives, he would actually take food off the tables of low-income U.S.-citizen kids who are, in every sense of the word, blameless. Even using a political calculator, adding Sen. Rubio’s two proposals together equals hypocrisy."
Rubio has not yet released his Dream Act proposal, which aims to grant legal status to some children of illegal immigrants, and has drawn opposition from the far right, which views it as amnesty. His Responsible Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Act of 2012 comes in response to a government audit from last year that said the IRS allowed undocumented workers to collect $4.2 billion in tax credits.
People without Social Security numbers can seek the credit through individual taxpayer identification numbers. The audit confirmed fraudulent filings. Rubio’s legislation addresses that by requiring "certain nonresident aliens to provide valid immigration documents to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit."
Rubio’s office dismissed the criticism as partisanship. A spokesman noted the legislation still allows noncitizens working here legally to claim the credit but they must provide documentation.
"Sens. Rubio, (John) Thune and others are sponsoring common-sense legislation to crackdown on fraud that costs taxpayers. We’re still in the process of gathering sponsors," said Rubio spokesman Alex Conant. "Obviously some partisan groups are looking for any excuse to attack Sen. Rubio and they’re confusing the issue here. We’re continuing to develop Sen. Rubio’s proposal to help high-achieving, undocumented children and hope to have bipartisan legislation soon."
Rubio’s bill is not the first to address the problem. A bill filed by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has the same aim but would require people seeking the credit to have a valid Social Security card. Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid has opposed it.
The Center for American Progress contends Rubio’s bill would hurt children and overstates the problem:
"The $4.2 billion in refundable credits that were issued in 2010 to more than 2 million ITIN filers represented about 15 percent of the total child tax credit refunds paid. Those same ITIN filers, however, also contributed more than $7 billion in federal taxes toward Medicare and Social Security, programs from which they will never recoup benefits. In other words, morality aside, the U.S. Treasury and American taxpayers still come out ahead by granting child tax credits to low-income families with an undocumented tax filer."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/29/2822942/sen-marco-rubios-bill-draws-charges.html#storylink=cpy

Former justice predicts cracks in Citizens United decision

1

day

ago

By NBC's Pete Williams

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens took a poke at the controversial Citizens United decision Wednesday night and said his former colleagues have probably already had second thoughts about it.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens speaks at a lecture presented by the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock, Ark., Wednesday, May 30.

The 2010 decision paved the way for the SuperPACs to which wealthy individuals, corporations, and labor unions can give unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates.  Stevens was among the justices who dissented in the court's 5-4 ruling.
In remarks prepared for delivery at the University of Arkansas, Stevens predicted that the court will soon be forced to issue rulings that will undermine a key part of the Citizens United ruling -- that the First Amendment "prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker's identity," including the fact that the speaker is a corporation.
The court's decision left undecided whether the same free speech right applies to foreign corporations. In due course, Stevens said, the court will be called upon to decide that question, forcing it to craft an exception "that will create a crack in the foundation of the Citizens United majority opinion."
"The court must then explain its abandonment of, or at least qualify its reliance upon, the proposition that the identity of the speaker is an impermissible basis for regulating campaign speech.  It will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection of some non-voters than to that of other non-voters," he said.
Stevens said a recent Supreme Court action may also undermine Citizens United.  In January, the justices upheld a lower court ruling that said two non-citizens could not make political contributions to political candidates.  It's therefore now settled, Stevens said, "that the identity of some speakers may provide a legally acceptable basis for restricting speech" through contributions.
Unlike most retired Supreme Court justices, John Paul Stevens has not been reluctant to criticize the rulings of his former colleagues.

Planned Parenthood and the presidential election

May 30, 2012

- 3:08 - 

Talking Points 5/30

Planned Parenthood targets Romney with new swing-state ad buy

Published May 30, 2012

FoxNews.com

• 
  May 29, 2012: Mitt Romney speaks in Las Vegas. (AP)

Planned Parenthood, endorsing President Obama Wednesday morning, went after Mitt Romney out of the gate with a new ad buy in crucial swing states accusing the Republican candidate of undermining women's rights.
The ad campaign seeks to exploit the so-called gender gap between the two candidates. Polls consistently show Obama doing better among female voters than Romney -- though Romney typically does better among men.
The 30-second ad, a $1.4 million buy expected to run in Florida and Iowa, pulls no punches. It intersperses sound-bites from Romney with warnings about his policies.
"When Mitt Romney says, 'Planned Parenthood, we're gonna get rid of that,' Romney is saying he'll deny women the birth control and cancer screenings they depend on," the narrator says. "When Romney says, 'Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes,' he's saying he'll deny women the right to make their own medical decisions."
The quote from Romney saying he'd "get rid" of Planned Parenthood has drawn complaints from the Romney camp in the past when it's been used by opposition groups. In the original interview with a St. Louis TV station, Romney appeared to be saying he'd get rid of federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and not the organization itself.
Regardless, the Planned Parenthood ad buy marks the latest escalation in a general election race that is quickly heating up. Romney clinched the nomination Tuesday night with a win in the Texas primary -- Obama, according to his campaign, called Romney shortly before noon on Wednesday to congratulate him.
With the latest ad buy, the Obama campaign can allow Planned Parenthood to wage somewhat of a proxy fight over women's issues and abortion, allowing the president's reelection team to focus on Romney's resume.
The Obama campaign is about to add a new line of attack to its anti-Romney message. After calling into question his tenure at Bain Capital, the campaign now plans to criticize his record as governor of Massachusetts. An Obama campaign official told Fox News this does not mean the campaign is abandoning its attacks over Bain.
The Romney campaign, meanwhile, is going after the Obama administration for its record of using taxpayer dollars to fund companies "that later failed."
No doubt meant as a response to the Bain aid, a new Romney web video asks voters: "President Obama is spending your tax dollars to create jobs. How's he doing?"
It goes on to cite Solyndra, the solar-panel firm that went bankrupt after receiving a $535 million taxpayer-backed loan guarantee. But the video notes "that's not even half the story," and cites other Energy Department-backed loans and grants to firms that later lost money and cut workers.
Outside groups on both sides will continue to pour millions into the presidential campaign. According to Politico, conservative super PACs and other organizations are planning to spend roughly $1 billion on the White House and congressional races. 

Federal judge strikes down part of new election law

By Steve Bousquet

Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau

TALLAHASSEE -- In a much-anticipated decision, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle on Thursday struck down some provisions of a Florida elections law that imposed new restrictions on third-party groups that register new voters.

Hinkle’s order said that a 48-hour deadline for groups to turn in new voter registration forms is "harsh and impractical." But he said most of the other provisions of the law can stand.
At issue are key elements of House Bill 1355, the elections code rewrite that passed the Legislature in the 2011 session. Following the restrictions on third-party voter registration, the League of Women Voters suspended all voter registration activity in Florida.

Unions sue to stop prison health care privatization plan

Two unions are challenging Gov. Rick Scott’s plan to save money by privatizing health care to the state’s 100,000 inmates.

By Steve Bousquet

Posted on Tuesday, 05.29.12

dadenews@MiamiHerald.com

TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Rick Scott’s administration was back in a familiar place Tuesday, the courtroom, where two unions are challenging a plan to save money by privatizing health care to the state’s 100,000 inmates.

The state has already hired two out-of-state firms to do the work at a minimum cost savings of 7 percent a year.

But the Florida Nurses Association and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) say the privatization plan is unconstitutional and want Circuit Judge Kevin Carroll to block its implementation.

The 2011 Legislature mandated the privatization through the use of budget language known as proviso.

The unions say that’s a violation of the state Constitution, and that a policy change must be enacted through a separate piece of legislation.

“You’re changing the law from what the law otherwise provided, and that you can’t do,” argued M. Stephen Turner, an attorney for the nurses. “We have to stop them when the Legislature goes too far.”

Scott’s administration lost a similar case last summer, when a union for correctional officers successfully challenged another proviso that ordered the privatization of nearly 30 prisons in 18 South Florida counties.

The state is appealing that ruling.

Assistant Attorney General Jon Glogau said the Legislature acted within its authority when it ordered the outsourcing of health care.

“Every line in an appropriations act is a policy decision,” Glogau argued, adding that the law allows the prison system to privatize health care on its own, if it wanted.

At stake are hundreds of jobs for people such as Doreen Von Oven, a licensed practical nurse at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution in Milton. Von Oven was in the courtroom Tuesday.
After six-and-a-half years as a state employee, Von Oven earns less than $34,000 a year. If the privatization is allowed, she is worried about losing a job when she provides her family’s health insurance.

“I don’t think it’s fair at all,” Von Oven said. “We went to work for the state, and now, maybe, you’re going to get to work for this private company.”

Attorneys for both private health care vendors, Corizon and Wexford Health Sources, joined the state in arguing that the privatization plan is legal.

Last month, Department of Corrections Secretary Kenneth Tucker approved the selection of the two vendors at a total cost in the first year of $359 million. Corizon would provide all health care to prisons in North and Central Florida, while Wexford would take over South Florida prisons.

The vendors were scheduled to be providing care by now, but their hiring requires approval by the Legislative Budget Commission, which has no meetings scheduled.

That could be a problem itself. Both sides agreed Tuesday that a proviso is valid only for the duration of the budget year in which it is implemented. The current budget year ends June 30.

Obama Plays Hardball and Loses Favorability

I do not get it? People bitched that the President did not stand up for himself or his presidency.  What do you people want?  Romney started the negative ads first.  And his atttack dogs in the super pacs this is what they do.  They say that the super p's are not to have

By Chris Stirewal

Power Play

Published May 31, 2012

FoxNews.com

“The president wants to make this a personal attack campaign; he’s going after me as an individual. Look, I’m an American, I love this country. I have experience in the economy that’s going to help me get good jobs for Americans so we can be secure again.”
-- Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in an interview with FOX News colleague Bill Hemmer.

President Obama has adopted a new, tough-guy persona for the general election, but so far it doesn’t seem to be paying off.

The rationalization for the harsh new Obama approach is that unless Democrats destroy Romney now, the president will get swamped in a flood of negative advertising from conservative groups in the fall. By making it ugly, early Obama hopes to press his advantage in organization and money while it still exists and define Romney as a bad man.

-

Obama, stung for years by complaints from his political base that he was a pushover and facing a Republican rival clearly unafraid to throw punches, the president is trying to show some edge.

The opening argument of the general election from Obama has been weeks of attack ads and harsh personal attacks on the character of GOP nominee Mitt Romney. On the stump, Obama has called out Romney by name and said that the former Massachusetts governor was too cruel to be president.

Simultaneously, the administration is touting the president’s role as a terrorist killer. The lavishly leaked New York Times piece on how Obama passes sentence on suspected terrorists for push-button assassinations overseas, including American citizens, is part of a longer effort to show Obama has evolved from his dovish days.

The new message from Obama: Times are tough, and so am I.

One of Obama’s leading biographers John Heilemann, laid out the new-look Obama persona in New York Magazine. His extensively sourced, well-reported piece shows the Obama organization remade as a blunt instrument. Profane, tough-talking, cynical campaign leaders explain why they are trying to absolutely destroy Romney. Short answer: because that’s what it takes to win.

One adviser explains to Heilemann that even though some voters are presumably racist, Romney can be shown to be such a villain that they would still prefer the company of the half-African-American Obama:

“[Romney is] not likable. He’s not trustworthy. He’s not on your side. You live in Pittsburgh and you’ve got dirt under your fingernails, who do you want to have a beer with? It ain’t f***ing Mitt Romney. You’re like, ‘S**t, I’d rather have a beer with the black guy than him!’”
His point is that even those who bitterly cling (in this case, to an ice-cold can of Iron City instead of guns and religion) can be made to find Romney more personally objectionable than Obama.

This swagger is comforting to some Democrats who worried that Team Obama lacked the thick-skin and aggressive instincts to do battle with Romney, who has a gift for getting in the heads of his political opponents.

Attack politics are hardly new to the Obama organization, but the concern among many on the Blue Team was that the president wasn’t taking the threat from Romney seriously.

There’s little doubt of that now. No incumbent American president has ever gone so negative, so early against an opponent. As in other cases, like dropping out of federal limits on campaign contributions in 2008 or blessing unlimited political action committee expenditures this year, Obama’s argument is that he has no choice but to do what is wrong now in order to have the power to do the right thing later on.  So far, though, it’s not going so well.

The rationalization for the harsh new Obama approach is that unless Democrats destroy Romney now, the president will get swamped in a flood of negative advertising from conservative groups in the fall. By making it ugly, early Obama hopes to press his advantage in organization and money while it still exists and define Romney as a bad man.

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Romney’s favorability ratings are up 8 points since late March, just before the Obama launched his spring offensive. Obama’s numbers are going the other direction, down 4 points.

The worrisome thing for the president is where this movement is happening. While Romney can credit much of his gains to the gradual coalescence of the Republican Party following the flame-throwing final act of their nominating process, swing voters are moving Romney’s way.
Romney showed substantial favorability gains among moderates, independents and saw his largest jump among female voters, a full 10 points. Obama, on the other hand, lost ground in all of the key categories. While Obama still holds a 5-point edge in overall favorability, Romney does 4 points better on unfavorability.

Put simply, 97 percent of voters have an opinion on Obama, and it’s an even split. Voters are also evenly divided on Romney, but only 88 percent have rendered a decision.

Romney has more room to grow, or, as Obama hopes, farther to fall.

Team Obama understands well the risks of negative campaigning, especially for a candidate whose previous persona was one of hopeful change and healing. But their calculation is that they can afford to take the beating now for the sake of ruining Romney and then have time in the fall to shift back to a less grim message.

The goal is that when Obama takes the stage to formally accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, that he will find a way to unite and inspire and that swing voters will have forgotten or forgiven his spring and summer attacks. Remember, Obama and his team very much believe in his power to reset the debate with a speech. Obama’s oration at Bank of America Stadium will be a seriously high-stakes affair.

Team Obama says it wants a replay of the 2004 election, just a pumped up version. Incumbents in tough times want choice elections, a referendum on issues, rather than stewardship elections, a referendum on the leadership of the incumbent.

In 2004, the choice was about the Iraq war. John Kerry wanted to leave, George W. Bush wanted to stay the course. Lots of things were said and done, but the election boiled down to that choice: stay or go.

Team Obama says the choice this time is between “forward” and “a return to the failed policies of the past.” This choice devolves quickly into minutiae about tax rates, mortgage incentive programs, Pell grants and other policy points. There is nothing like the starkness of the choice in 2004. Kerry explicitly wanted to leave Iraq. Bush explicitly wanted to stay. Voters narrowly chose the latter.

Given the repetitive nature of Obama’s policy proposals in the past two years, it seems highly unlikely that he will be offering any such bright-line choices. Certainly he could make it a choice election about his policies, particularly his 2010 health law, but that would not work out very well.

The actual choice Obama is seeking is between the two men personally and is right now whaling away on Romney in a hope that the dirty-fingernail set in the swing states will deem the former Massachusetts governor and quarter-billionaire unacceptable.

But unless Obama can crystallize for voters what the real choice here is, Obama risks just looking mean spirited and nasty, the very qualities he hopes voters come to see in Romney.

The Day in Quotes
“It has been clear for years that the Obama administration believes the shadow war on terrorism gives it the power to choose targets for assassination, including Americans, without any oversight. On Tuesday, The New York Times revealed who was actually making the final decision on the biggest killings and drone strikes: President Obama himself. And that is very troubling.”
-- New York Times editorial, “Too Much Power for a President.”

“…some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance.”
-- Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking before the Council of Black Churches, decrying efforts in some states to require voters to show identification.

“Obviously, the world economy is still in a delicate place because of what’s going on in Europe and the fact that some of the emerging countries have been slowing down.”
-- President Obama alluding to signs of a weakening economy in a speech given ahead of signing a re-authorization of the Import-Export Bank.

"Sex-selection abortion is extreme violence against unborn baby girls and their mothers.”
-- Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., speaking in support of a bill he has sponsored that would enact a federal ban on gender-based abortion.

"This has come up because I think somebody decided politically it was a difficult place to put people in. [But] any interpretation that voting against this bill is therefore for abortions for the purposes of selecting gender would be wrong – period."
-- House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer talking to reporters about Franks’ legislation, due for a vote today.

The Big Numbers

“70 percent”
-- Decrease in membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees chapter that represents Wisconsin state workers since the state stopped automatically collecting dues from worker paychecks last spring, according to the Wall Street Journal. Statewide, the union’s overall membership dropped from 62,818 to 28,745.
“7 points”
-- Lead by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker over Democratic challenger Tom Barrett in Tuesday’s gubernatorial recall election, according to a survey of likely voters by Marquette University Law School.

And Now, A Word From Charles

“You have to ask yourself, how could a feminist oppose this legislation? After all, gender selection [in abortion] is the ultimate in gender discrimination.  It's the killing of a female -- it's almost always a female -- in utero, and you would expect a huge protest.”
-- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

South Florida Democrats say Gov. Rick Scott leading “misguided” effort to purge voters from state rolls

Posted on Tue, May. 29, 2012

By Amy Sherman
asherman@MiamiHerald.com

Taimy Alvarez / Sun Sentinel

Bill Internicola, a 91-year-old Army veteran of World War II who earned the Bronze Star and the Legion of Honor for his service, is one of the voters targeted by the state as a potential non-citizen, and was ordered to prove his citizenship or lose the right to vote. He is flanked by U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, who called on Gov. Rick Scott to stop his purge of voter rolls immediately.

Bill Internicola was born in Brooklyn 91 years ago and received a Bronze Star for fighting in the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, but, according to the state of Florida, he may not be a U.S. citizen.

Internicola received a letter in May from the Broward Supervisor of Elections stating that it received "information from the State of Florida that you are not a United States citizen; however you are registered to vote." The letter was part of a controversial state-led effort to rid the voter rolls of noncitizens. Similar letters were sent to 259 Broward voters.
Internicola said he was “flabbergasted” by the suggestion that he wasn’t a citizen. He called the county’s election office and said: "Are you crazy?"

Internicola shared his story at a press conference Tuesday in Davie, where he was joined by two members of Congress: Ted Deutch (D-Boca Raton) and Alcee Hastings (D-Miramar). The Democratic lawmakers say Internicola is an example of Gov. Rick Scott’s “misguided” effort to purge legal voters from the rolls before this year’s presidential elections.

Internicola said he sent Broward a copy of his Army discharge papers. He is one of six voters on the list who have provided paperwork to prove they are citizens, said Mary Cooney, a spokeswoman for the supervisor.

Broward was following the direction of the state Division of Elections, which initially identified roughly 180,000 potential noncitizens by searching a computer database from the state’s Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. But the drivers’ license list doesn’t automatically update when someone becomes a citizen.

The state whittled that list to more than 2,600 voters and forwarded those names to counties. A Miami Herald analysis of the list found it was dominated by Democrats, independents and Hispanics. The largest number were from Miami-Dade, home to the state’s highest foreign-born population.

In Miami-Dade, 359 voters have provided proof that they are citizens. The county determined on its own that an additional 26 were citizens, while 10 others either admitted they were ineligible or requested to be removed.

Voters have 30 days from the receipt of the letter to provide documentation of citizenship or they will be removed from the rolls.

Any effort to remove names from Broward’s voting rolls draws particular scrutiny because it is the most Democratic county in the state. It has more than 500,000 registered Democrats and could play a pivotal role in the outcome of a close presidential or U.S. Senate contest in November.

Deutch called Internicola an “American hero” and described him as “the face of Gov. Scott’s request to purge our voter rolls."

Internicola said he was born in Brooklyn to an American-born mother and Italian-immigrant father. He traveled to several countries in Europe during World War II working as a medic where his nickname was “Pepsi” — since his last name ends with “cola.” He got married, worked as a vice president of a restaurant chain in New York, had a son and daughter, and said he moved to Florida in the 1980s.

Broward voting records show that Internicola registered in 1991 and has been a frequent voter — including the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections — and in at least a couple of municipal elections. He’s a lifelong Democrat

Internicola admitted to one discrepancy in records. He says he was born in 1921, though he said his drivers’ license indicates 1919. The reason: in his youth he wanted to start driving early so “I bent the truth a little bit.”

Hastings said the state was engaging in "voter suppression" and using a "back-door poll tax" by not sending a pre-stamped envelope to voters to mail back their proof of citizenship.
Deutch and Hastings wrote a letter to Scott Tuesday questioning the timing of the voter roll drive just three months before the primary.

“Providing a list of names of questionable validity — created with absolutely no oversight — to county supervisors and asking that they purge their rolls will create chaotic results and further undermine Floridians’ confidence in the integrity of our elections,” stated the letter also signed by Florida Democratic Rep.’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Frederica Wilson, Corrine Brown and Kathy Castor. They asked Scott to “immediately suspend the purge of voter registration lists” in order to “ensure not one Floridian finds his or her legitimate voting rights callously stripped away.”

Chris Cate, a spokesman for the state Division of Elections, defended the state’s actions. “It’s very important we make sure ineligible voters can’t cast a ballot,” he said in an email to the Herald on Tuesday.

He said the state continues to identify ineligible voters, saying the state Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles has agreed to update information using a federal database that the elections division couldn’t access directly.

“We won’t be sending any new names to supervisors until the information we have is updated, because we always want to make sure we are using the best information available,” Cate wrote. “I don’t have a timetable on when the next list of names will be sent to supervisors, but there will be more names.”

Also complaining to Scott was Florida’s only statewide elected Democrat, Sen. Bill Nelson. "Attempts to purge the voter roll so soon after signing one of the nation’s most controversial voting laws raises concern, especially among young and minority voters," Nelson wrote in a letter to Scott.

Republican Party of Florida Chairman Lenny Curry slammed Nelson for practicing the “worst kind of politics.”

“Senator Nelson not only asks our public servants to ignore the threat to electoral integrity, but he implies those who meet their legal obligation to ensure honest elections are being discriminatory,” he said in a statement. “Nelson’s distortions and willingness to pit people against each other based on race demonstrates the worst kind of politics.”

In an interview, Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes said she is complying with the state’s orders, but does not believe the bulk of the voters who have yet to respond are non-citizens. She called for the state to stop the process and vet the list more carefully using more sources of records beyond the drivers’ license data.

“List maintenance is ongoing,” Snipes said. “We would have gotten folks off the rolls if they are not supposed to be there anyway.”

Broward Party’s Democratic chairman Mitch Ceasar said the number on the county’s list — 259 among more than 1 million registered voters in Broward — “is very very microscopic.” But he questioned the action led by Scott’s administration.

“It’s not by accident that Florida is doing this and all these other states that have Republican governors are doing it,” Ceasar said. “The odds are too high that they had the same independent thought of each other.”

Colorado and New Mexico have also launched similar efforts to check voter databases for noncitizens.

Miami Herald Political Writer Marc Caputo contributed to this report.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/29/v-print/2822073/south-florida-democrat-say-gov.html#storylink=cpy

Feds demand Florida cease its plan to find non-citizen voters

The Justice Department told Florida election officials that they are violating the 1965 voting rights act by seeking to remove ineligible voters from their rolls.

By Marc Caputo

Posted on Thursday, 05.31.12

mcaputo@MiamiHerald.com

The head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has demanded that Florida cease its hunt for noncitizen voters, saying it breaks a 20-year-old voter registration law.

At issue: the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters, and the federal National Voter Registration Act, which forbids states from conducting programs to "systematically remove ineligible voters" within 90 days prior to a federal election.

"Our records do not reflect that these changes affecting voting have been submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for judicial review or to the Attorney General for administrative review as required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act," wrote Christian Herren, the DOJ’s lead civil rights lawyer.

"Accordingly, it is necessary that they either be brought before that court or subitted to the Attorney General for a determination that they neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of discriminating on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group under Section 5."

Also, he said, since the next federal election is Aug. 14, the state should have ceased the attempted purge on May 16, according to the letter Herren wrote. His reasoning closely resembles the tone and substance of a group of liberal-leaning voting-rights groups.

“To enable us to meet our responsibility to enforce federal law, please inform us by June 6 of the action that the State of Florida plans to take concerning the matters discussed in this letter,” wrote Herren. “Specifically, please advise whether the State intends to cease the practice discussed above, so that the Department can determine what futher action, if any, is necessary.”

So far, the state has identified nearly 2,700 potential noncitizens on the voter rolls by comparing its elections database with citizenship data maintained by the state’s Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

County elections supervisors, along with The Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times, have found that many people identified as potential noncitizens are actually citizens who are lawfully registered to vote.

A Miami Herald analysis further found that a disproportionate number of those flagged as potential noncitizens – 58 percent –are Hispanic. Hispanics are Florida’s largest immigrant group. No-party-affiliated voters were the most-likely to be targeted and whites and Republicans were the least likely to be flagged.

A coalition of voting-rights and liberal-leaning groups wrote Secretary of Ken Detzner last week and demanded that the elections office under his control cease with the noncitizen voter hunt. The groups intended to sue if the state proceeded. They pointed out the National Voter Registration Act “expressly forbids states from conducting programs to ‘systematically remove ineligible voters” within 90 days prior to a federal election.”

Since the next federal election is Aug. 14, the groups say, the state should have ceased the attempted purge on May 17.

But the state contends that the law isn’t so clear.

“We disagree with their interpretation,” said Chris Cate, spokesman for the Florida Division of Elections.

Cate wouldn’t specify the source of the state’s disagreement. Some defenders of the state note that the federal registration act says a voter “may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except…as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity.” And, since state law forbids noncitizens from voting, the state can purge them because it’s “provided by state law.”

But Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, an attorney for the Advancement Project and the other elections groups, said that exception only applies to felons or those with “mental incapacity” – not potential noncitizens.

“The law is clear,” she said, “You’re not supposed to conduct these systemic efforts within 90 days of a federal election.”

Prenatal Nondiscrimination Bill Discriminated Against in Congress

This is another way that the Republicans are trying to wage war on Women.  I just do not understand,  it is like they are intimidated by our stick-to-it and do not quit.  No glass ceiling for us.  They really want us home, pregnant, not working, home schooling, not voting, no rights.  What are we? WOMEN OR MICE?  Women stand up and take action, because if we don't, we will be sorry....  

May 31, 2012 06:44 PM
by Dennis DiClaudio | 

Congressional Democrats need to make up their minds. Are they opposed to discrimination against women or are they in favor of it? Because House Republicans are getting some real mixed signals over here.

First they were opposed to Republican efforts to reduce women's access to abortion options while limiting their ability to use birth control, and now they won't get behind a GOP plan to stop prenatal sexual discrimination. What gives?!

The House on Thursday rejected a Republican bill that would impose fines and prison terms on doctors who perform abortions for the sole purpose of controlling the gender of the child, a practice known as sex-selective abortion.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 3541, was defeated in a 246-168 vote. While that's a clear majority of the House, Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass. In this case, it would have required more support from Democrats.

Twenty Democrats voted for the bill, while seven Republicans opposed it. The bill would have needed 30 more yeas to pass.

Look, this is a serious problem that probably happens all the time, probably. Okay, maybe we don't have the numbers to back that up, but we have something better than numbers. Strong suspicions. And sure this would make it that much more difficult for women to get abortions. That's totally a coincidence.

Probably.

Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images News/Getty Images

H.R. 3541: Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended)

Number:

House Vote #299 [primary source: house.gov]

Date:

May 31, 2012 (112th Congress)

Result:

Failed

Related Bill:

H.R. 3541: Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012
Introduced by Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ2] on December 1, 2011
Current Status: Reported by Committee

This vote was taken under a procedure called “suspension of the rules” which is typically used to pass non-controversial bills. Votes under suspension require a 2/3rds majority. A failed vote under suspension can be taken again.

Bill Overview

Status:

Introduced	Dec 01, 2011
Referred to Committee	Dec 01, 2011
Reported by Committee	Feb 16, 2012
Passed House	May 31, 2012 (112th Congress)Failed
Passed Senate	(not yet occurred)
Signed by the President	(not yet occurred)
The committees assigned to this bill sent it to the House or Senate as a whole for consideration on February 16, 2012.

Prognosis:

Just 29% of all House bills reported favorably by committee in 2009–2010 were enacted.

Text:

• Read Bill Text

Cosponsors:

show cosponsors (98)

Committees:

House Committee on the Judiciary
The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

Votes:

H.R. 3541: Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended)
May 31, 2012 2:14 p.m.. Failed.

Subject Areas:

Use these subject areas to explore related legislation:

Crime and Law Enforcement

Abortion

Assault and harassment offenses

Civil actions and liability

Crimes against women

Criminal investigation, prosecution, interrogation

Criminal justice information and records

Criminal procedure and sentencing

Health personnel

Legal fees and court costs

Racial and ethnic relations

Sex, gender, sexual orientation discrimination

Violent crime

Primary Source

THOMAS (The Library of Congress)
THOMAS is updated generally one day after events occur and events since the last update may not be reflected here.

Official Summary

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

12/1/2011--Introduced.

Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 - Imposes criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly or knowingly attempts to: 

(1) perform an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent; 

(2) use force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; 

(3) solicit or accept funds for the performance of such an abortion; or 

(4) transport a woman into the United States or across a state line for the purpose of obtaining such an abortion. 

Authorizes civil actions, for verifiable money damages for injuries and punitive damages, by: 

(1) fathers, or maternal grandparents if the mother is an unemancipated minor, of unborn children who are the subject of an abortion performed or attempted through any of the above violations; and 

(2) women upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted with a knowing or attempted use of force or threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion. 

Authorizes, to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this Act, injunctive relief to be obtained by the women upon whom such an abortion is performed or attempted, spouses or parents of a woman upon whom such an abortion is performed, or the Attorney General (DOJ). Deems a violation of this Act to be prohibited discrimination under title VI (Federally Assisted Programs) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Violators of title VI lose federal funding.) Requires a medical or mental health professional to report known or suspected violations to law enforcement authorities. Imposes criminal penalties for a failure to so report. Prohibits a woman having such an abortion from being prosecuted or held civilly liable.  

Excludes from the definition of "abortion" actions taken to terminate a pregnancy if the intent is to save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion, or remove an ectopic pregnancy.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Tuesday May 29, 2012

Michelle Obama Interview Pt. 1

First Lady Michelle Obama discusses her book "American Grown," and how she leads hundreds of kids in harvesting the White House garden in preparation for a vegetable feast.

Michelle Obama Interview Pt. 2

Michelle Obama doesn't lord her superior approval ratings over President Obama, and says she's comfortable with her kids hanging around Joe Biden.

Apparently Michelle Obama Did Not Read Her Husband's Book

On The Daily Show last night, Michelle Obama said the death of Barack's father focused him and prompted him to transfer to Columbia University. In fact, as he recounts on the first page of his famous, best-selling memoir, the future president had already transferred to Columbia when his father died. posted May 30, 2012 12:36pm EDT

 

nycsouthpaw  

BuzzFeed Contributor

Michelle Obama reacts to "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart last night in New York.

(AP / Frank Franklin II)

In an interview on The Daily Show Tuesday night, First Lady Michelle Obama confused the timing of a crucial event in her husband's youth.

Responding to a question from Jon Stewart about President Barack Obama's teenage marijuana use, Michelle Obama credited the death of the president's father with focusing him, years before the future first couple met in Chicago.

"That was one of those click-in moments,” she said. “And he really buckled down, he transferred schools, went to Columbia and thought about how to use life to the fullest.”
In fact, President Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia in the fall of 1981, and his father did not die until November 1982.

In the opening lines of President Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father, the president recounts learning the news of his father's death at his apartment in New York:

 

A quick guide to the John Edwards trial

• 22

  Apr

  2012

  5:02pm, EDT

  By Hampton Dellinger, Special to msnbc.com

  GREENSBORO, N.C. — If you're just tuning (back) in to the federal prosecution of John Edwards on charges stemming from $900,000-plus in payments from two Edwards political supporters to his mistress, Rielle Hunter, here's what's going on:
  

  Hampton Dellinger, a litigation partner with Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson of Charlotte and Chapel Hil, N.C., is former deputy attorney general of North Carolina and has taught election law at Duke University Law School. In 2008, he sought the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor.

  Who
  

  • Defendant Johnny Reid Edwards (a Democrat and arguably the most famous lawyer to face a criminal trial since Clarence Darrow). U.S. senator from North Carolina from 1999 to 2005. John Kerry's running mate in 2004. One state away (Ohio) from being vice president of the United States.
  • Edwards' lawyers: Washington-based Abbe Lowell, aided by North Carolina litigators Allison Van Laningham and Alan Duncan.
  • The prosecutors: David Harbach of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section and Robert Higdon Jr., a longtime federal prosecutor based in North Carolina.

  
  

  Why
  According to the arrest warrant (.pdf) and the indictment (.pdf), the financial support for Edwards' mistress constituted unreported, excessive and, thus, illegal campaign donations. Prosecutors say Edwards bears criminal responsibility for his role in the arrangement.
  
  When
  Money from two Edwards supporters — Fred Baron and Rachel "Bunny" Mellon — was used for the travel and living expenses of Hunter (as well as of political aide Andrew Young and his family) in 2007 and 2008 while Edwards was seeking the Democratic nomination for president. Edwards was indicted in June 2011. Jury selection started in April. Opening arguments were to begin Monday.
  
  Where
  U.S. District Court in Greensboro, N.C., on the third floor of the 80-year-old federal courthouse on Market Street).
  

  The Stakes
  Edwards faces six felony counts (five of accepting excessive contributions, one of filing a false report with the Federal Election Commission), each of which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. As for the government, this is the highest-profile case for the Public Integrity Section since the bungled prosecution of the late Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, in 2008.
  
  The Arguments
  In pretrial motions, Edwards complained about being tried for activity (money transferred from third parties to third parties) for which no one before has ever faced election law-related criminal charges and about alleged bias on the part of the prosecutor — who drove the investigation and indictment and then stepped down to run for Congress. Prosecutors disputed both claims, and the judge ruled in the government's favor.
  You can read
  

  • Edwards's arguments here (.pdf) and here (.pdf) and 

  • the government's responses here (.pdf) and here (.pdf). 

  In mid-April, the sides summarized their arguments in trial briefs;
  

  • the defense's are here (.pdf), and 

  • the prosecution's are here (.pdf).

  
  The Judge
  U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles spent a dozen years in private practice and 17 years as a state trial judge before being appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama in 2010.
  
  The Jury
  

  We won't know the demographics of the 12 jurors and the four alternates until the trial starts Monday, but extensive efforts have been made to find a fair and impartial group. A lengthy questionnaire followed by days of individual questioning resulted in Eagles' narrowing the initial 185-person pool to 42, all of whom she believes can be fair to Edwards and to the government. Each side is now set to exercise its peremptory challenges, meaning it can strike potential jurors without giving a reason.

  Want to read more? Hampton Dellinger previewed the trial for The Atlantic:
  
  Why the John Edwards Trial Is a Bigger Deal Than You Think
  
  He has previously blogged about the trial for WTVD-TV of Raleigh-Durham, N.C.
  
  An index identifying every legal motion and summarizing every court ruling from the indictment until the eve of trial is here (.pdf).

  
  14 comments

  My My, that slut on the side can get costly!

Five big questions as the John Edwards trial starts

This article and the next ae close to being the first two, on the same day just hours apart. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hampton Dellinger, an election law expert reporting for msnbc.com, and Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, go over the details of the John Edwards trial.

22

Apr

2012

11:36pm, EDT

ANALYSIS

By Hampton Dellinger, Special to msnbc.com

Updated at 5:21 p.m. ET: After months of pretrial hearings and weeks of jury selection, the trial of John Edwards really started Monday. The jury pool was winnowed from 42 to 16 (12 jurors and four alternates); in the afternoon came the opening statements.

Hampton Dellinger, a litigation partner with Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson of Charlotte and Chapel Hill, N.C., is former deputy attorney general of North Carolina and has taught election law at Duke University Law School. In 2008, he sought the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor of North Carolina.

I've tried to answer as many questions as possible in trial previews for The Atlantic and for msnbc.com. But here are five key questions that remain unresolved and that could determine the trial's outcome:

Who's in charge?

You've heard of "blended families"? This case features two "blended trial teams." Edwards has churned through nearly a dozen lawyers but has settled finally on the threesome of Washington-based Abbe Lowell and North Carolina lawyers Alan Duncan and Allison Van Laningham. The latter two joined Team Edwards just a month ago, but they know well the key fact witnesses (Edwards, his mistress, Rielle Hunter, and political aide-turned-legal nemesis Andrew Young), having represented Hunter in her civil lawsuit against Young over possession of the infamous "sex tape." Lowell has led Edwards' defense team since August. The eleventh-hour addition of Duncan and Van Laningham seems to have gone smoothly, but the test will come when the jury is in the box. How much of a role will Lowell (and Edwards) let the local lawyers play? (I predict a big one, particularly for Van Laningham.)

Trial of John Edwards over mistress funds is set to start

The prosecution trial team has been more stable, but it is also a Washington-North Carolina mix. Two lawyers are from the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department in Washington, and the third, Robert Higdon, is with the U.S. attorney's office in Raleigh, N.C. Combining "Main Justice" and "Main Street" federal prosecutors proved disastrous in the Ted Stevens case. Public Integrity needs this prosecution to be scandal-free. (I predict it will be.)

Chris Keane/Reuters

John Edwards arrives with daughter Cate Edwards at the federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., on Monday morning.

Beyond the two legal teams, there is the larger issue of the extent to which U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles will rein in or let loose the lawyers in terms of both the pace and the substance of their work.

Will the former Federal Election Commission members get to testify?

Two former FEC chairmen, Robert Lenhard and Scott E. Thomas, are prepared to testify that Edwards' conduct does not violate civil law, much less criminal. Eagles has so far denied prosecution efforts to bar their testimony but has instructed Edwards' counsel "not to address [FEC] expert testimony during opening statements." Whether the commissioners ultimately testify, and to what extent they are permitted to opine, may ultimately be more important than whether Hunter or Edwards take the stand.

Key documents Here are some of the key documents in the John Edwards trial. All are in .pdf form: Arrest warrant Trial docket Edwards motions to dismiss for lack of notice Prosecution response Edwards motion to dismiss for prosecutorial bias Prosecution response Edwards trial brief Prosecution trial brief

Does the jury focus more on the facts or the law? On what this case is or what this case isn't?
There are many ways to view the Edwards case, but here are the two most salient to my mind:
The prosecution will want the jury to focus on the facts and what the case is about. The defense hopes the jury fixates on the law and what the case is not about.
Here's why. Edwards' personal conduct (cheating on his cancer-stricken wife and lying about it) is abhorrent. And hundreds of thousands of dollars in "off the books" activity in the orbit of a political candidate should be troubling to all but the most laissez faire observer. The more the jury focuses on the facts of what did happen, the more likely is a conviction. Conversely, the strength of Edwards' defense lies in the lack of legal precedent (i.e., law) for a criminal prosecution based on the pattern of facts present here and how his actions differ from the typical political corruption cases (i.e., quid pro quos, excessive and unreported donations that pay for TV ads, get-out-the-vote or other direct campaign support, or lobbyist-sponsored lining of a politician's pockets). The more Edwards is able to introduce evidence (through the former campaign regulators or otherwise) about the legal novelty of the charges against him, the better his chances.


How well will the jury understand the case?The Edwards case is no ordinary whodunit. When a death is ruled a murder, there's no doubt someone committed a crime. The jury's role is then limited to deciding whether or not the defendant is the perpetrator. In the Edwards trial, the jury must first decide whether key facts are established (What did Edwards do? What did he know?). Then it must determine whether those facts constitute criminal activity. I've worked on campaign finance lawsuits as an attorney, taught election law as a professor and followed the Edwards investigation and prosecution closely from the outset. Maybe I'm alone in finding the issues of law and fact implicated by this case complex (and at times confusing), but I doubt it.

What will the jury instructions and the verdict form consist of?
Because of the case's complexity and its likely duration of a month or longer, the jury instructions and the verdict form that will close the trial could be of paramount importance. So far, they have received little attention. But as the trial winds down, expect heated arguments (oral and in written, and outside the presence of the jury) between the prosecution and the defense over the precise wording of each.

108 comments

• Sounds like a political witch hunt, leave the guy alone