He's a donor, Lat, not a fundraiser, and they're giving the money back.

He has raised several hundred thousand dollars for the clitonians, and they are only giving a portion back, not all of it.

The New York Times calls Hsu a fundraiser:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09hsu.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Hsu is a fundraiser because he "bundled" large contributions for Hillary Clinton (and other Democrats). He even attained the status of "Hillraiser" (reserved for people who bundle $100K or more).

Technically, UDC has been provisionally accredited since the early 90s.

My favorite line of the Craig piece by far:

"Minnesota law is that a guilty plea may be withdrawn if it was not intelligently made 'and what Sen. Craig did was by no means intelligent,' said Specter."

Not exactly fine legal analysis, but Ol' Specky hit the nail on the head, eh?

Anyone else wondering about the math on the MO Supreme Court nominee? From the article:

"Breckenridge, 53, has served on the Western District Court of Appeals in Kansas City since December 1990. She previously served for nearly nine years as an associate circuit judge in Vernon County."

So, 1990 was 17 years ago, which would have made her 36 when she assumed that position. Pretty young for an appellate judge, but OK.

But she previously served for 9 years as an associate circuit judge? That makes her 27 when she rose to the bench. WTF? Even if she went straight through, she'd be a 3rd year associate. Is my math wrong or something?

Not that she's not a fine judge now. Unlike the FRC, I have no problems with her based solely on her not being a documented wingnut...but 27? What's going on in the MO judiciary?

today is off to a slow start

10:24/10:54 -

UDC Law has been fully accredited since 2005.

http://www.law.udc.edu/advocate/facts.html

Getting a day in jail for serving a salty burger at McD's?

Crazy, should have made the morning docket.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR2007090901802.html

The biggest factor in considering whether Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea is that he was uncounseled.

Uncounseled pleas are sometimes not allowed in as prior convictions for purposes of impeachment.

1:56 -

In what jurisdiction are guilty pleas entered by unrepresented defendants inadmissible? Not here.

Anyway --

Craig is toast. He ought to swallow his medicine like everyone else who goes before a judge without the benefit of counsel. The guy has more money than God - he's a US Senator, after all - yet he can't drop a couple thousand on a top criminal-defense attorney to counsel him on how to handle the charges?

He's not some idiot off the street - he's A FUCKING UNITED STATES SENATOR, one of 100 guys and girls who get to MAKE the laws that the rest of us labor under, including a variety of fun Federal offenses. I'm not buying the argument that he entered the plea under duress.

Actually, I hope the judge does grant the motion and reopen the case - the prosecution can go after him with all guns blazing.

2:56 - I bet you have an neat perspective on how it wasn't a big deal that Bill Clinton, supposedly an attorney, lied to a FUCKING FEDERAL GRAND JURY.

I'm so sick of this shit. When a Democrat screws up, it's a minor and trivial occurance... and Repbulicans must be blowing things out of proportion. When a Republican screws up it's always some major insight into the workings of the vast right wing conspiracy and an indictment of conservatives generally.

3:19 -

When did I say it wasn't a big deal that Clinton lied to a Federal grand jury? When, in fact, did I even bring up Clinton or the Democrats?

Damn, you're all butthurt over Wide Stance Craig, aren't you?

What kind of an argument is that, 2:56? Even a Senator needs an attorney.

If you want to pop off on an angry rant fine, but let's don't pretend that you make any sense.

If he did take this to trial he'd probably win on the facts if he didn't first get the law tossed.

7:12, you don't get it, do you?

Craig is trying to overturn the plea on the basis that he was unrepresented.

But he's not some asshole who fell off a turnip truck. He' a sophisticated adult who knew exactly what he was doing when he pled guilty.

This isn't about whether or not he could beat the charges - it's about whether he should have the plea vacated.

I'm surprised Lat hasn't mentioned the article in today's USA Today noting that lawyer Larry Craig hired to help him out of his little fiasco is the same guy Michael Vick hired to help him with his plea bargain. That's classic.