the Dems on this point and on any point that we feel strongly about. No question on that. I just find it a little disheartening, GG, that you seem so inclined to believe the worst about Obama based on evidence that is so flimsy you would never believe it on another topic. I mean, that Fineman crap you link to: c'mon, the most he says is that Durbin is leaning toward keeping Lieberman because Obama is "signaling" -- whatever the hell that means -- to do so. It is not sourced to anyone (Fineman says, "I am told..." By whom, pray tell?). You're certainly not going to tell me that you just think Fineman is so inherently credible on these matters that he must be believed? Yet, based on this thinly sourced horseshit, you all but accuse Obama's spokesperson of lying about the extent of his involvement. (And no, you don't say those words exactly, but it's the fair inference of your words.)

Hell, maybe it's just smart policy to always assume the worst of our elected officials until they prove otherwise. Lord knows there's enough historical grounding for such a rule. But I prefer to give Obama the chance to prove himself on his own terms. Might he prove to be every bit as untrustworthy as his predecessor? Yes, and if so we need to hold his feet to the fire just as much as we have with Bush. But is there no room for the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise?

Absolutely right, GG. There is a case to be made for a limited executive privilege, and as long as it is applied in a consistent and principled manner, I don't have a problem with it. But deliberately refusing to investigate misconduct in the name of some misguided sense of "moving on" is not a principle that anyone should be in favor of.

I fully agree, GG, that "pragmatism" or "competence" should not be elevated over ideology, in the abstract. But to me the relevant point with respect to these appointees is that their personal ideology is not really at issue. He may prove me wrong, but I don't see Obama as being like Bush, i.e., a incompetent or at best uncurious boob who can be controlled by a Cheney or a Rove. I think that the policies of this administration will be set by Obama himself -- after due deliberation and consultation with his aides -- and I also think that if Hillary or any of the other appointees don't carry out his policies, they will be gone pretty fast. If that turns out to be true, then competence in carrying out those policies really is more important than the appointees' own ideologies, isn't it?

Hate to say this, because I am a fan of hers, but this is a big test for Rachel Maddow. Were this any other organization but NBC, this would be right in her wheelhouse. If she stays silent about this, it will be very disappointing.

If she has already addressed it and I just missed it, then my apologies to her.

I've been frustrated by the rush in some quarters to criticize every Obama pick (and even some picks that were only rumored). But I completely agree that it works both ways. I can look at these picks and say, at most, that they appear to be competent individuals who could be effective at carrying out Obama's agenda. But until we see what that agenda is, the best one can be is cautiously optimistic. And while I am more than cautiously optimistic that the Obama administration will be a vast improvement over Bush, it is still far too early to declare that a New Day has dawned in any fundamental way.

I must say I didn't follow the Rich pardon well enough to have ever heard this supposed justification about civil suits. But as a litigator (sorry to use that appeal to authority, I don't mean to suggest I know everything but I do have some experience) that claim sounds like pure bullshit to me. It is true that judges have the power to stay civil suits pending a criminal trial and would normally be inclined to do so, because of the difficulties that the civil discovery process can inflict upon a defendant who's also facing a civil trial. But a fugitive? I find it hard to imagine any court refusing to allow a civil suit to proceed where the criminal trial was being indefinitely delayed by the defendant's own act of fleeing the country. I'd be happy to be shown I was wrong by actual decisions from courts in the cases that were supposedly stalled, but without that I find Clinton's claim to be pretty implausible.

the difficulties that the civil discovery process can inflict upon a defendant who's also facing a civil trial.

Sorry, I meant facing a criminal trial.

Not really much to say, just, your comments are spot-on, GG.

Sorry if this has already been commented on, but I'd just like to point out that while the FIS Court of Review opinion "resolves" the 4th Amendment issues for itself and for the lower FIS Court, it does not resolve the issue for any other court. GG did say "until the Supreme Court reviews," but that's not quite complete. The FIS Court of Review's opinion is not binding at all on other courts of appeal. The right-wing blathering about this being the "highest intelligence court in the land" is just horseshit, even without considering the fact that, as GG points out, the Supreme Court can review its decisions. It is no higher than any other court of appeal.