The site will be moving to an upgraded server in a newer data center this weekend. The move will happen either Friday or Saturday night. (I’m making the same move with another server first to shake out the kinks in the process, so I don’t know which night this server will move.)

There will be some downtime. If it’s late Friday night or Saturday night and you can’t reach the site, don’t panic.

Eric Holder:

In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.

Says the guy who approved search warrants investigating James Rosen for disclosure of material.

D’oh!

What will it be?

UPDATE: Looks like the answer is official confirmation of just how deeply Eric Holder was involved in monitoring James Rosen’s emails — which functions as official confirmation that he lied under oath, though they will never admit that.

Paid administrative leave, that is. Otherwise known as vacation.

Dershowitz says she has waived her Fifth Amendment rights, by the way.

UPDATE: So, Ms. Lerner, you did nothing wrong, you say. Is it wrong to send intrusive requests to conservative groups after you learn they have been targeted?

Watch this to get some idea.

Lois Lerner didn’t just take the Fifth. She gave a little speech first saying she had done nothing wrong. That certainly opens her up to some questions, although the extent to which it does is debatable.

Imagine the following sequence of questions:

1) Did you do anything wrong?

2) Do you think that it would be wrong to target conservative groups because of their ideology?

3) Did you target conservative groups because of their ideology?

Given that Lois Lerner gave an opening statement in which she said that she had not done anything wrong, it would be interesting to see where along this group of three questions she decided to take the Fifth.

Would she, having declared that she did nothing wrong, refuse to answer a question asking her whether she had done anything wrong? Refusing to answer a question simply asking her to reaffirm something she already said would not only be legally improper, in my view, it would also look like game playing.

Would she declare that she had done nothing wrong, but refuse to answer questions about whether targeting conservative groups for their political views is wrong? Even though that question does not directly ask anything about what she did? That would probably blunt the force of her declaration that she did nothing wrong.

Or would she declare that she did nothing wrong, and agree that targeting conservative groups is wrong — but refuse to say whether she targeted conservative groups?

I hope that when they bring her back before the committee they ask questions like this.

There are going to be a certain number of questions that are designed for the cameras. Did you target conservative groups? Did President Obama tell you to target conservative groups? Did you kill Grandma and bury her body out behind the woodshed? Congressman will ask her questions like this in order to get her to respond by taking the Fifth, hoping that it will make her look guilty.

But a more targeted group of questions that relate directly to the content of her opening statement would be more advisable in my opinion. At the very least, they should follow up each question they ask concerning her actions with the question: “Would it be wrong to do that?”

Either she will refuse to answer questions about whether obviously wrong actions are wrong — or, having declared she did nothing wrong, she will be required to answer questions about whether she took these actions.

I hope someone on Rep. Issa’s staff sees this post.

[Guest post by JD]

Ezra Klein and Joshua Marshall are good little foot soldiers, and shapers of leftist narratives.

Yesterday, it was reported that the White House had summoned their ideologically allied bloggers to the White House for a session in shaping the narrative of the multiple scandals enveloping Teh One’s transparent administration. This is not the first time they have done so.

Today, both Wunderkind Ezra and JoshTPM strike out some bold territory where they focus all of the IRS scandal on Ms Lerner, while maintaining the narrative that this was an isolated non-political incident, and far removed from the White House, as is everything.

Ezra is apparently worried about having his emails and phone records searched.

Teh next narrative is emerging.

—JD

He is running:

NEW YORK Anthony Weiner has tossed his hat into the race for New York City mayor, joining a crowded field and formally beginning an attempt to come back from a scandal that forced him to resign from the House of Representatives.

After weeks of speculation, the disgraced former congressman made it official with a YouTube video.

I have a few questions I think he should be asked. Start with the DMs he sent to a high school girl in Delaware, and the creepy “cape and tights” line that he used with her — a line he also used with an adult woman with whom he exchanged sexually explicit messages.

As I noted in a June 11, 2011 blog post titled Weinergate: Five Is Not Two:

• On Wednesday, June 8, the New York Post was told that the girl was telling her mother that there had been only two G-rated messages:

  The girl’s mother, whose name is being withheld, told The Post Wednesday that Weiner sent nothing obscene — and sent only two brief messages to her daughter about seeing him during an April school trip to the Capitol. . . . The mom said she pointedly questioned her daughter about whether Weiner sent her anything obscene, and the girl swore it was all G-rated.

  Note: this is not a claim that she showed her mom messages, but that she had told her mom the messages were G-rated. And that there were only two.

• On Thursday, June 9, 2011, this blog published proof that Weiner had sent the girl the second message quoted at the top of this post: a reference to Weiner being a Superman in cape and tights. This direct message seemed especially creepy given that Weiner had employed identical “cape and tights” imagery as a grooming line for a woman with whom he had exchanged explicit sexual messages…

• On Friday, June 10, 2011, now that the “cape and tights” line was out of the bag, all of a sudden we were being told that there had been five direct messages, and not two. Their alleged content was described in the New York Times, and the creepy line “I came back strong. Large. In charge. Tights and cape shit …” was edited to read: “I came back strong … Large. Tights and cape. …” Readers were not informed that Weiner had included an expletive in his message to the 17-year-old high school junior — much less that the “[t]ights and cape shit” line resembled a line that Weiner had used with an adult woman with whom he had sexted.

It is an open question whether Weiner went down the same road with the high school girl that he went down with the Vegas blackjack dealer — or whether he would have, at some point, if he had not been found out.

I think it’s high time these questions were explored.

I’m sure there’s an innocent explanation. I mean, it’s not like the White House is going to target reporters for investigation just because they report stories that embarrass them!