Naturally, the talk is that he may be running in 2016.

That’s what we do, right? Pick one of the losers from last time. Every time.

Works out great, dunnit?

Hmmmmmm. Multiple break-ins at the offices of a lawyer for a State Department whistleblower. Unlocked office across the hall with valuables left untouched. Lawyer says it has to be related to his client’s case.

Hmmmmm.

(Is it worth remembering at this point that Glenn Greenwald had a suspicious burglary occur at his residence in Rio in which a laptop was stolen and nothing else — two days after telling his partner that he was going to send him encrypted documents from Ed Snowden? Which he says he ultimately did not send, by the way. Yes, I think it is worth remembering that.)

I love this line from Ed Morrissey’s post: “State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki categorically denied that the break-in was connected in any way to the State Department.”

Was that before or after she categorically denied that John Kerry was on his boat?

A categorical denial from Jen Psaki . . . that’s almost as good as an admission, isn’t it?

And why not? If one scumbag New York politician can come back from a creepy sex scandal, why not two?

Eliot Spitzer, who resigned as governor of New York five years ago amid a prostitution scandal, is re-entering political life, with a run for the citywide office of comptroller and a wager that voters are ready to look past his previous misconduct.

In a telephone interview on Sunday night, Mr. Spitzer, 54, sounding restless after an unwelcome hiatus from government, said he had re-envisioned the often-overlooked office and yearned to resurrect the kind of aggressive role he played as New York State’s attorney general. He said that after consulting with his family and taking the temperature of the city’s electorate, he believed New Yorkers would be open to his candidacy. “I’m hopeful there will be forgiveness, I am asking for it,” he said.

Spitzer has no suspicious DMs with any underage girls to explain either, so, bonus!

Nothing you don’t know, but interesting to see it expressed so clearly in Big Media. The piece is titled Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won’t Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter — Here’s Why:

I drew a legal conclusion on “Good Morning America” Saturday that would have surprised the Dan Abrams who covered the George Zimmerman case leading up to, and shortly after, his arrest.

Now that the prosecution’s case against Zimmerman is in, as a legal matter, I just don’t see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

. . . .

Zimmerman’s injuries alone — his broken nose and cuts on the back of his head — are objective evidence to support his account that he shot Martin as he was being pummeled.

Just as important is the testimony of neighbor John Good, who lived directly in front of the location where Martin was shot. He very precisely (but reluctantly) testified that he saw the lighter skinned man in the red jacket on the bottom of the scuffle with the darker skinned man with the darker clothing on the top in a “mixed martial arts position.” He said he now believes that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman. . . . Good’s testimony in conjunction with Zimmerman’s injuries are likely enough to cast reasonable doubt on the key question, which is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he needed to shoot Martin to prevent “great bodily injury.”

This is not a close call.

Your Zimmerman thread is here. If it starts getting too unwieldy, let me know, and I’ll start a new one tomorrow.