Rahm's Contacts

I’m still trying to sort through the conflicting stories on contacts Rahm Emanuel had with Rod Blagojevich and his crowd. One of two things is going on:

1. Rahm has been less than forthcoming in describing his contacts with Blagojevich and his minions.

AND/OR

2. There has been a sustained effort to misrepresent Rahm’s contacts with the governor.

Note the AND/OR there: I believe both are true, to a point. Which is why I’m still trying to wade through these details.

Did Rahm call Blago in December?

The most recent conflicting data point is this one, included in a Sun-Times story reporting on Reid’s contact with Blago:

Before [Reid’s and Menendez’s conversations with Blago on December 3], Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Blagojevich to tell him to expect to hear from Senate leadership because they were pushing against Jackson and others, according to statements the governor made to others.

This would seem to conflict with Rahm’s representation to Obama’s team, which asserted that he had only spoken directly to Blago one or two times–both in early November.

Mr. Emanuel had one or two telephone calls with Governor Blagojevich. Those conversations occurred between November 6 and November 8, 2008.

There are a couple of ways to resolve this contradiction, neither one of them very satisfying. First, it is possible (though highly improbable) that Rahm told Blago on November 8 that Senate leadership would call him (though note that–at that point–Schumer had not yet announced his resignation as DSCC Chair), and they simply didn’t get around to calling him until December. This is unlikely for two reasons: Obama’s team hadn’t even given Blago their "list" yet, so it seems unlikely that Reid and Menendez or Schumer were already lobbying heavily. And then there’s the unrealistic delay of almost a month, during a period when it was never clear whether Blago was about to appoint someone in the near future or not.

The other way to resolve the contradiction is via the dodge I pointed out earlier. The Obama report does not claim to be a comprehensive on all contacts between Obama’s team and Blago’s team; it is limited to conversations relating to Obama’s successor.

On December 11, 2008, the President-Elect asked the White House Counsel-designate to determine whether there had been any staff contacts or communications – and the nature of any such contacts of communications – between the transition and Governor Blagojevich and his office relating to the selection of the President-Elect’s successor in the United States Senate.

The fact that Rahm did not know whether he had one or two conversations with Blago directly about the Senate seat suggests there were other conversations on different subjects. After all, presumbaly Rahm could check his cell phone records to find out the total number of calls with Blago, so his uncertainty on number suggests an uncertainty about the content of the calls, not an uncertainty about the number of calls. 

Thus, given the way this report is scoped narrowly to cover only contacts about the Senate seat, it’s possible that as Rahm was discussing other issues with Blago–such as the special election to replace him–Rahm mentioned that Harry Reid would call, without much else. How a smart guy like Rahm could imagine that that didn’t pertain to Obama’s seat and therefore rationalize leaving it off the report on contacts, since Reid wouldn’t much care about Rahm’s seat, I don’t know. 

Also, add in the possibility that the Sun-Times reference to Rahm calling Blago was the same metonymy that Axelrod got in trouble for earlier: representing a contact with a Blago representative as a contact with Blago. Given the possibility that John Wyma was preparing to speak to Rahm after November 13, as suggested by the complaint, this opens up other ways for a Rahm contact with Blago’s team–but not Blago–sometime closer to the Reid and Menendez phone calls on December 3.

Did Blago make up a December Rahm call, either in December or more recently?

But there is another possibility: that Rahm never actually called. To understand why, consider the structure of this statement:

Before their contacts, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Blagojevich to tell him to expect to hear from Senate leadership because they were pushing against Jackson and others, according to statements the governor made to others.

This claim is based not on Blago’s assertion to the reporters who wrote this story, but on assertions Blago "made to others," with no qualification as to when Blago made the statements or what his potential motivations might have been. Which, as I suggested yesterday, could mean one of several things.

  • Blago was taped around about December 3 saying, factually, "Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call" and somehow those tape contents found their way to the Sun-Times.
  • Blago told people around about December 3 that "Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call" and those people are now sharing that information with the Sun-Times (note, these people could just as easily be JJJ associates as Blago associates).
  • Blago told people, after he was arrested but before Obama released his report, that "Back in December Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call" and those people are now sharing it with the Sun-Times (these people would be more likely to be Blago associates, but could still be JJJ associates).
  • Blago has directed people to tell the Sun-Times in the last week or so that "back in December, Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call" and those people are now doing Blago’s bidding. 

Given that Blago now knows tapes exist but did not before December 3 and given that Blago saw Rahm’s version of affairs on December 23 with the rest of us, some of these are more likely than others (that is, it would be stupid for him to claim, now, that Rahm called on December 3 if he did not call at all, since that would be easily disproven). And, depending on the timing, Blago’s motivation for doing this would be different; inventing a Rahm call in December might have served to heighten the urgency of donations for JJJ’s associations, whereas doing so in the last week would fit Blago’s race-baiting strategy to get Burris appointed. And anything Blago has said in the last month may be intended for potential jurors, as LabDancer reminded me yesterday.

Again, I don’t know which of these many scenarios is true. But there are at least two other major discrepancies between Rahm’s claims about his contacts and what has been reported about his contacts. There’s the question of whether or not Rahm included JJJ and Cheryle Jackson on the list of candidates Obama found acceptable for the seat, as I laid out yesterday.  And there are the reports that Rahm had 21 contacts with Blago’s team (which might easily be explained by the Obama report dodge if there were 15 contacts with Blago’s team on subjects unrelated to the Senate seat). 

Which is why I come back to that AND/OR distinction. There appears to be some contest over what Rahm said when, with multiple players playing to get their side out. I find that curious.

image_print
  1. WilliamOckham says:

    There’s one other possibility, albeit representing a real stretch of the truth. The Obama team’s report says:

    Mr. Emanuel had one or two telephone calls with Governor Blagojevich. Those conversations occurred between November 6 and November 8, 2008.

    Whereas the Sun-Times report says:

    Before their contacts, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Blagojevich to tell him to expect to hear from Senate leadership because they were pushing against Jackson and others, according to statements the governor made to others.

    Maybe Emanuel just left a message for Blagojevich and no conversation occurred.

  2. SaltinWound says:

    Does it matter if JJJ was on Rahm’s list if, in the same breath, he was saying, Harry Reid is going to call and he has a big problem with this guy. This is classic both-sides-of-the-mouth agenting. It reminds me of Rahm’s brother.

    • emptywheel says:

      The timing would still be almost unbelievable–that Rahm gave Blago a list in mid-November, and then three weeks later Reid swooped in to make his anti-JJJ argument.

      Even assuming that we ought to believe Blago over Reid on this one, which I’m not sure I believe.

    • FormerFed says:

      More from Huff Post:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..55274.html

      Boy, they are all summa cum laude or magna cum laude (Ms. Johnsen has also although not mentioned in this article) and other impressive credentials.

      Compare that to Gonzo and his bunch of dummies. Two more weeks.

      • bmaz says:

        They are all from Harvard. So was Gonzo. I trust these are all more competent than Gonzo, but come on, does Obama know that people outside of Harvard and the University of Chicago exist in the world?

            • R.H. Green says:

              Paraphrasing you from yesterday: And your point is?” I’ve also noticed a restricted range in Obama’s talent pool. Gues he doen’t have a large “friends-of-Bill” type rolodex.

        • WilliamOckham says:

          At least we know her views. Check this out.

          Executive branch secrecy further hinders both judicial and congressional review. At times, of course, secrecy is essential to preserving national security, but the Bush Administration has taken the level of executive branch secrecy to a new and unwarranted extreme. By its nature, secrecy undercuts the efficacy of external checks. Congress or potential litigants may not even know about unlawful executive action unless someone in the government violates administration policy, and perhaps statutory prohibitions, to leak information. Such leaks were responsible for the public disclosure of the Bush Administration’s legal opinions and policies on coercive interrogations and torture, the National Security Administration’s domestic surveillance program that operated outside the requirements of FISA, and the use of secret prisons overseas to detain and interrogate suspected terrorists. Ultimately, even with the current Supreme Court’s relatively strong willingness to protect rights in the face of unlawful executive action, coupled with scrutiny from the press and advocacy organizations, the Bush Administration has engaged in years of largely unconstrained illegal practices.

          • R.H. Green says:

            As important as these positions are going forward, I’m most heartened by Johnson’s stated (Slate article) view that “moving on” without retroactive accountability is not acceptable. If confirmed, and if these views are not abandoned, Johnson could pose some pressure on Holder to act to review the legal positions and activities of the Bush administration.

        • nextstopchicago says:

          Just a note — at Harvard, magna cum laude means you wrote a thesis and didn’t write it well. Cum laude is a better recommendation in some ways. You didn’t write one, but your grades were top notch.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Spencer says that Chuck Todd and the NYT say that Leon Panetta will be the new CIA chief. Leon Panetta? Really?

      • lllphd says:

        neck in neck on that news.

        your response is like mine, but also like most folks when ford appointed ghw bush.

        not saying panetta is in there for the same reasons bush was placed there, though.

  3. SaltinWound says:

    I agree with you about the timing. I’m still stuck on one point: the recommendation of Jesse Jackson Jr. was a classic non-recommendation recommendation–he’s on our list but you shouldn’t pick him.

    • emptywheel says:

      But do you have any evidence for it?

      While I find it perfectly credible that Blago manufactured a Reid statement explicitly opposing JJJ out of a non-recommendation of him, I find it slightly more suspicious that Obama wouldn’t support him and–just as importantly–that Cheryle Jackson, the one other African American on Obama’s list, somehow got excluded in “Blago’s” version of the list, as well.

      That’s sort of the key for me. While I would be unsurprised if Obama didn’t want “cut his nuts off”’s son to replace him, only because of that comment, I find it inexplicable for Obama to invent a list with Cheryle Jackson on it when no one knows who she is (moreover, she sounds like the kind of hyper competent person Obama would love). So the absence of Cheryle Jackson on Blago’s list looks like a set-up, which suggests the absence of JJJ may be too, which suggests that the twist of JJJ’s non-appearance on Reid’s list may be too.

      • SaltinWound says:

        Evidence?! No, I don’t have any of that. I was just trying to reconcile some competing stories, given my experience with human nature. Like the other day, when everyone was agreeing Iseman’s lawsuit makes no sense and hurts McCain but was resisting the notion that she’s not doing it to go after the Times, she’s doing it to go after McCain. I was working with the notion that the suit makes no sense. But here, your point about Cheryle Jackson is a monkey wrench, I agree.

  4. JohnLopresti says:

    The amorphousness of the interorganization conversations is reminiscent of the US attorney purge scandal records of communications, as well as of my own experience as clerk or somewhat lesser untitle in desultory comms with a key state official. There is a range of topics, and some interlocutors more informed and better linked to principals than others, depending on the efficiency of the organization and the genius of the varrious lawyers engaged.

  5. JohnLopresti says:

    OT: worthwhile paper on how other countries engaged in hyperbolic executive action in times of stress, but subsequently struggled to shed the overburden of relinquishment of precrisis civil liberties, matched against how US congress fostered Patriot and PAA processes, by a prominent UN consultant and IRL scholar on assignments in US academia, with her co-author.

  6. R.H. Green says:

    “…absence of Chyeryle Jackson on Blago’s list looks like a setup…” Sorry, but I don’t follow this; would you explain further?

  7. LabDancer says:

    We’re all of us familiar with Message Tag – and on top of that, I expect you [and Ms E Wheel in her acknowledgment too] mean to include the full range of distinctions between ”conversation” and ”contact” which normal interoffice congress allows for – as in [by way of example]:

    – email from instigator’s office to recipient’s office to alert recipient to intention to call, along with inquiry as to availability and best times
    – responding email or phone call from recipient’s office with bare acknowledgment of message having been brought to attention of recipient and reply to come in due course
    – further email or phone call from recipient informing instigator or available times for call
    – confirming email or phone call picking preferred date and time
    – acknowledgment from recipient’s office
    – reminder from instigator’s office
    – advance call from instigator’s office, met with request to call back in say 15 minutes
    – follow up call from instigator’s office – success and ”conversation” ensues

    That’s 8 contacts for a single ”conversation”, none of it extraordinary IMO.

    • bmaz says:

      Oh, wonderful, the Secretary of State now is selectively determining what official gubernatorial acts he will allow and which he will not. Jesse White has, illegally if you ask me, now abrogated the governor’s office and personally assumed the powers thereof in a coup. This is most certainly a great day in state politics. Or not.

      • lllphd says:

        if i read the article correctly, it was the secretary of the SENATE who did not “formally accept” because it was not signed and sealed. not the secretary of state for IL.

      • R.H. Green says:

        “White has illegally abrogated the goveror’s office.” I’m glad you mentioned this. Can you explain to us nonlawyers how this is illegal. I recall White saying that his legal advisors told him that he had no obligation to sign the appointment cirtificate. I didn’t then, nor now, understand how that could be. Further, even if it were true, then what would be the point of having such a cirtificate?

        I can imagine scenario in which the govenor announces that he will appoint X, if (S)he will accept. Then hours later announces that he’s asked B, who has accepted. Then a day later withdraws B’s appointment and names C. This isn’t turning out to be a good example; I was looking for a state of abiguity in which the Sec of State could step in to provide an official appointement designation, perhaps to be made by a certain date, say the openning of the new senate. Thus such a certification would be necessary and binding.

        Perhaps a better take would be the SoS of Florida in 2000, when on a certain date the election results had to be certified, in spite of the ongoing dispute as to who won and which votes were or were not properly counted.

        If,as White claimed, there is no obligation to sign a cirtificate of appointment, anyone could show up at the Senate and claim to be the emissary of the govenor, even multiple somebodies. The upshot of witholding a cirtificate is to provide an excuse for the senate to take up the question of appropriate seating.

        • bmaz says:

          Sorry, was mostly away during the day. Basically what I am saying is that White is now picking and choosing, on his own volition, what acts of the governor’s office he will, and will not, sign. He has, as to said acts, effectively usurped the power of the governorship to himself and from the governor. But neither the Illinois Constitution nor Illinois statute, in any way, shape or form, give the Secretary of State this authority, power of unilateral veto if you will. As best I can discern, and I am pretty sure I am right (even White himself has admitted he does not have this power) the SoS certification on these gubernatorial acts is strictly ministerial and he has no right to prevent the lawful acts of the governor duly made under the power of the office of governor; yet that is exactly what he is doing. White has taken the law, and the Illinois Governorship, into his own hands exra-legally, if not illegally, His acts are ultra vires.

          • R.H. Green says:

            Thanks for taking my call. Not sure what ministerial means here, nor ultra vires.

            Sorry if I’m being thick-headed here, but I still don’t get it. White said initially that his legal advisors told him he had no obligation to sign the cirtificate, and further he understood that his doing so did not obviate the govenor’s appointment. First, you say doing this is illegal. Second we are left wondering, why do it? If it is illegal, then isn’t White in violation of the law (and his advisors wrong)? If legal,and not effective in controlling the appointment, it is merely a gesture. Where I smell a rat is the effect it has at the Federal level, when someone appears at the senate,claiming a seat without home state certification. What happens then? Does Burris suggest the doorkeeper call the state governor and have him verify the appointment (or does the appointee carry a letter to that effect)? Is the senate obliged to accept these entrees. Is this the basis for a senate debate on seating? If so, that may well provide the basis for the withholding of the cirtificate, to start such a procedure. Am I drifting out to sea here?

            • bmaz says:

              Illegal was probably the wrong word; extra-legal may be better. He has no authority to veto or prevent the governor’s act; no legal basis for doing so. White has acknowledged this.

              Ministerial act is the act a functionary or bureaucrat performs in a prescribed manner, without execising any individual judgment or discretion. Ultra Vires means outside of an officer’s power and/or authority; impermissible.

              I believe the Illinois Supreme Court will order the SoS to affix his certification forthwith the second they consider the issue

              • R.H. Green says:

                Thanksfor your continued engagement on this. Your link provides more info or refreshes me. White’s press secretary claims not to be holding up the appointment(or vetoing it); how the senate deals with the lack of certification is up to them, he says. I see that Reid’s spokeman says that the lack of the certification does provide grounds for the senate to refuse to seat. If there is any indication of coordination between Reid and White, it would appear to constitute an attempt to deprive the citizens of Illinois of due representation. Wouldn’t that be open to a charge of obstruction of justice?

                • bmaz says:

                  Eh, I dunno about obstruction; but it does appear rathe meddlesome and ham fisted. In fairness, I believe Reid legally can refuse based on the lack of certification (pretty fucking tacky of him to have pushed for the Illinois official to deny cert though); however, I expect the cert issue to be cleared up by the Illinois Supreme Court very quickly. Then what will Hanoi Harry do?

                  • R.H. Green says:

                    “…pushed for the Illinois official to deny cert…” Didn’t know that. Did he push White? If so, there was “coordination”. Look again at the outcome of such pushing. Isn’t Reid getting into a tarbaby, not just tacky?

  8. LabDancer says:

    And if someone is capable of giving into the temptation to actively mislead by conflating the concepts of ”conversation” and ”contact”, then how difficult is it to conceive of that person contriving ”misremembrances” of the content of various such ”conversations” and ”contacts” to manufacture an impression to spread to others?

    Again [as above, solely by way of example]:

    -email indicating desire to converse re: ”our preferred choices, VJ etc” – from which one takes ”etc” to mean ”didn’t mention JJJ”

    Another [same caution]:

    -conversation in which one side offers say 4 or more choices one-by-one [not necessarily exhaustively: e.g. no mention of Toad Burris, or any of some 5 million other constitutionally eligible African American Illini], with something positive said on some, something negative said on others [not AAI], and something like a chuckle in response to JJJ based on JJS’s Fox pas.

    Worse, this sort of self-serving impressionism isn’t always completely washed away in verbatim transcripts of actual conversations. I’ve had more than one case where the trial turned on a judge’s take on a conversation and the appeal turned on 3 or 5 or more other judges entirely different take – sometimes with little to nothing on what was the jury’s take.

  9. Mary says:

    EW – it looks like it’s going to be hard to nail down contacts until they get a lot more specific in their language. “Called me” and “called for me” and similar references cover so much territory: called and spoke with me; called for me but spoke with someone else bc I wasn’t available; called someone else who works with me for the purpose of having them tell me something; called and left messages with any of the foregoing, etc.

    On the DOJ picks, I’ll want to read the law review articles before making a determination – it’s one thing to sound good by saying you’re against the “policy” of too much Exec secrecy; it’s something else to call for prosecutions. And even if she does call for them, she’s in a slot that responsive, not proactive at OLC. All she gets is a shot at saying something if asked for the opinion. She’s a Yale-y currently teaching at IU- Bloomington (in Indiana, you have to put all kinds of city designations for the universities – there’s IU Indy, IU Bloomington, IUPUI Indy etc.)

    Kagan thought that academia at Harvard was incomplete without Goldsmith’s representation. Perrelli was on law review with Obama, but I think it’s kind of interesting that he clerked for Lamberth.

    In a perfect world, it would be nice to see the pics for DOJ more independent from Obama and less a crew of people he has personal connections with – I think when there’s an aura DOJ being run by “Obama’s friends from law school and his campaign” you don’t necessarily start as clean as you might want to, but they all seem to have strings of credentials.

    • R.H. Green says:

      I take your point about Johnson’s possibly being pigeon-holed in a respond-if-asked-only job, however my gut feel is that she won’t like it, and may not want to keep quiet about it. I recall how Clinton quickly named window-dressing cabinet officials, the spent weeks carefully selecting the undersecretaries and their assistants, to get a team that would feed him what he wanted. How much of this is in play here remains to be seen, after the inauguration I guess.

  10. lllphd says:

    ok, i’m going to admit on the front end here that i have not read each and every comment on these blago posts. and there are no doubt many fine points that escape me.

    that said, has anyone addressed the overall picture here regarding fitz’s arrest timing vis a vis the appointment, at least in the following respect?

    one scenario that occurs to me is that fitz was toiling away on his various investigative avenues of blago’s questionable activities when, after 11/4, blago started up his “valuable…more than appreciation” noise on the wiretaps, and/or was alerted to such by a potential candidate. i can well imagine that fitz was alarmed that a crime might be about to occur in the form of a senate seat being sold.

    is it implausible that he went forward with that piece of the investigation in order to stop that crime from actually being committed, especially given that it had such comprehensive long term consequences beyond chicago politics and his list of other blago crimes? i mean, is he not under professional and/or ethical obligation to actually do that?

    and if so, would he be able to do this without jeopardizing the other crimes in his overall investigation?

    • emptywheel says:

      That’s almost certainly what happened–though there were three crimes in process, not just the senate seat sale: there was also the money for the pediatric hospital ($8 million, that was about to be withdrawn to make good an extortion threat) and the Wrigley Field stuff.

      That said, the reason why Fitz has gotten an extension on the indictment (till April) APPEARS TO BE so he can continue to shield the participation of certain cooperating witnesses until the whole thing is wrapped up. So he’s definitely trying to keep that investigation clean, too.

      • lllphd says:

        i was aware of the other investigations; likely did not make that clear in my inquiry.

        i suppose my reason for asking is that the scenario i described does seem the most plausible to me, so i’m having a bit of trouble determining just what all the fuss is about. i mean, we just don’t have enough information to make these fine point determinations, and even if we speculate, some info we don’t have (unknown unknowns?) might completely thwart our best guesses.

        it’s about here (maybe even earlier) that i would just wait and see as things come in.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Ken Silverstein as a source (described as a Former Senior CIA Official) who says this about Panetta:

      A fascinating pick. He is very smart and capable, and a power center to himself in Washington. He was very effective as White House chief of staff under Clinton and understands how to operate in Washington. He will not be pushed around by Jones, Blair, or anyone else in uniform. I think he is the most powerful individual pick yet, even more than Clinton at State, because he doesn’t have negative political baggage. I suspect he will have direct access to POTUS, and considerable throw weight in discussions, all of which is good for the agency.

      [Just between you, me, and the fencepost, between this and the source’s earlier comment, I suspect that Silverstein’s source might be a certain Greek-American who once received the Medal of Freedom … but that’s just idle speculation on my part.]

        • WilliamOckham says:

          Tommy K. got one, too? I did not know that. I thought you had to be war criminal to get one of those…

          [This is all a joke between me and Bmaz, just in case you couldn’t tell]

  11. LabDancer says:

    A hearty second to this. The timing of the arrest to the possibility of MacBlago bringing down his hammer on the Senate Seat Sale was, I think, both necessary and IMO somewhere between responsible and gutsy – but I’ve felt from the beginning, based on the outline in the Affidavit filed with the Complaint, that it was the other stuff – the sick kids hospital and the friendly confines deal – where those down-ladder from MacBlago, at least 3 of them taken down by indictment so far could add lively detail and connect the dots could contribute the most.

    And those plea deals and sentence deals take time, in ways that don’t seem immediately apparent to us popcorn eaters, but make a lot of sense when one considers the human context.

    For example, it’s extremely rare to find someone in legal jeopardy, particularly in such a hubris-larded occupation as politics, who is anxious to get sentenced and processed into the pokey. Quite apart from the denial – and denial is hardly unique to politics – it’s just not a very pleasant prospect, to say the least. The willingness to bite down hard and face the music is one of the main things that distinguishes John Dean, one of the best examples of the exception that proves the rule, and what kind of guts it takes to become one.

    One time-dragging place this shows up [and there are a number on top of it] is simply getting all the bums in chairs to commit the focus and time necessary to strike an agreement on the facts. It’s not as simple as bargaining in a flea market: even what seems the best case scenario for one side or the other can later turn up and bite butts, especially in the sort of highly charged, high profile serial dramas that Fitz is known for.

    In less nationally momentous in my puppy prosecution years someone we on the government side thought was Mr Big and sought to have him treated appropriately succeeded in putting up a big smoke screen on an early plea deal on the facts and thereby fox’d a federal judge skeptical from years of the previous administration’s calling everyone and his gofer the Kingpin got caught up later in some unfortunate timing when his associates – and I mean all of them – tried much the same tactic after their trial and conviction, which brought in a veritable cornucopia of detailed evidence into Big’s appeal, and resulted in his getting hit way way harder in the end than if he’d just avoided the ploy in the first place. Best laid short term plans etc …

    So if the apparently ubiquitous Mr Ata for example were to offer a juicy bonus tidbit to lighten his term, such would first have to be investigated, and thoroughly, tracked down and corroborated as both trustworthy and useful and not inconsistent with what else is already on record and what might be coming down the chute, all before moving on to getting the details settled.

    You’d think things might get a bit easier after conviction when the ”only” issue is sentence, but in fact that’s far more likely to be wear heels will get dug in – just because one side’s ROOM to bluff is reduced doesn’t make that side’s bets less audacious – and that side gets to feeling simultaneously beleaguered yet like all the attention justifies him acting like a diva, with timing being among the chips.

  12. nextstopchicago says:

    Another pedantic thing to notice, but it underscores Marcy’s point that the review was undertaken by a lightweight — I went back to look at the Review, and noticed they friggin’ spelled Valerie Jarrett’s name wrong once – as ‘Valarie’.

    I mean Jezus Crist, had all the adults already left to do advance work in Hawaii? Didn’t they even have a competent proof-reader?

  13. jacqrat says:

    Did anyone else hear Tweety
    say Caroline Kennedy has the NY junior senate seat sewn up? Didn’t Jane just debunk that theory earlier today?

    • demi says:

      I heard it too and had the same reaction. But, that was just the stuff he spouts at the top. The teasers. We’ll see what he says later.
      Hi Jaq!

  14. chuck08 says:

    I have lived in Chicago for many years and Roland Burris is a Political Gadfly. This guy runs for everything and wins almost nothing! Having said that, Harry Reid is the weakest person I have ever witnessed in my 61 years. Why do the democrats keep this Weakling as a leader!! This says to the Republicans “Hey, we are weak and you can run over us whenever you like”. Roland Burris and ultimately Rod Blago will win this situation because Harry Reid has never seen a fight that he didn’t want to run away!

    Chuck

  15. milly says:

    Since Rahm Emmanuel’s House seat is history …in a perfect world…he would be found duplicitous by team Obama. Then Howard Dean would be appointed chief of staff. Rahm could go on home. Never to be seen in the public eye again. I’m new. Hi

  16. Staggerlee says:

    Part of the reason the Republicans might not mind Burris

    is

    his extensive ego and lack of focus.

    • demi says:

      And, the way he says “the A ter”…
      He obviously doesn’t read the lefty blogs, or he would have said Kabuki.

  17. Rustyzipper says:

    Inauguration Day Rally for Burris:

    If Reid wants to play games, so be it

    There will be thousands of African-Americans in Washington that day to celebrate the swearing in of President-Elect Barack Obama.

    This would be a “radioactive” situation…

    And, if I were Barack Obama, I would ever so quietly pass the word to those white Democratic Party U.S. Senators to make sure than Burris was sworn in before my day in the international sun.

    The alternative would be the danger of Burris being a big story on January 20, 2009.

    If they want to play games.. bring it on, he was appointed legally, and is a good man. The Jerk that appointed him will be gone soon… we can not wait… Seat Him!!!

    This is only going to get crazier… do it now!

  18. AitchD says:

    Did Fitz maybe end the surveillance before Obama’s Senate Seat 2.0 negotiations got underway? Is ‘appreciation’, as in the first negotiation, a lawyer’s term of art like ‘consideration’ in contract law?

  19. tanbark says:

    Another good thread, ‘Wheel. Lots of possibilities.

    But let’s ask this: If Rahm made a sorta/kinda counter to Blago’s asking for something; say, like: “Well, we might be able to find something down the road.” or just anything that had a whiff of being willing to bargain, then how badly is he (and Obama) hurt on this? There’s a difference between being indictable and being involved to a degree that means he has to go under the bus.

    And Jarrett’s refusal to talk directly with Craig, when he was doing his internal investigation, but instead, sending her lawyer, has piqued a little interest. As I recall, her timing for deciding that she preferred a post in the White House, instead of that seat, was exquisite. You have to wonder when she got word of Fitz’s investigation.
    I’m sure she’s a bright lady and it didn’t take her long to figure out that even having your name brought up in those conversations was a small dollop of tar. She may have decided that if she wanted the chance to be on Obama’s staff she needed to be as far away as possible from the seat disposal. :o)

    • raina says:

      I think Obama has pretty much painted them into a corner, at least as far as the Senate seat goes, when he said a few times now that their was no deal making, so if there were any conversation with Blago to that effect they would end up looking bad.

      I got that impression from the transcript on Lynne Sweet’s Sun-Times blog that they all talked to Craig through their lawyers for the internal report, not just Jarrett. I’d be curious to know if she told anyone about her encounter with the labor union official (where he mentioned Blago was interested in HHS and she laughed it off) and they decided to talk her out of the Senate seat. It was well known that Blago was under investigation, and the fact that they did not have Obama contact him directly would seem to indicate that they were suspicious of him.
      ———–

      emptywheel:”* Blago told people around about December 3 that “Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call” and those people are now sharing that information with the Sun-Times (note, these people could just as easily be JJJ associates as Blago associates).”

      “* Blago told people, after he was arrested but before Obama released his report, that “Back in December Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call” and those people are now sharing it with the Sun-Times (these people would be more likely to be Blago associates, but could still be JJJ associates).

      “* Blago has directed people to tell the Sun-Times in the last week or so that “back in December, Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call” and those people are now doing Blago’s bidding.”

      I’m hedging my bets and going with one of these three. From the way it’s worded in the Sun-Times piece, it sounds like that particular info came from someone who heard about the call, not someone who actually heard the call. I got that impression with the way the source was cited in the “Rahm is pushing Valerie because he doesn’t want her in the White House” story too.

      If Obama wanted JJ Jr. and Cheryle Jackson on the list and Rahm told Craig they were on the list, they had better be included in his taped conversations. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see why they would chance contradicting what’s on the tapes. Better to say nothing, or “I don’t remember,” than to give specifics.

  20. tanbark says:

    RWCole@49; I think, none that we know of. But those 6 calls (I believe that’s the number) to Blago/Harris in the period after the election make you wonder just what WAS said.

    Again, what would it take to put Emanuel in trouble? Right now, this is all on the back burner because of the interest in the Burris appointment, but if Emanuel was dickering with Blago, I’d sure rather have it come out now, than a month from now.

    • RevBev says:

      And The Newshour, covering the Richardson story, made a strong point of Obama’s being very quick to cut off any source of problems.

        • R.H. Green says:

          bmaz, I left a reply for you @ 35 earlier today. I would be appreciative if you’d care to add your thoughts to my musings on the White subject.

          (What’s that you say; appreciation doesn’t pay the rent?)

  21. tanbark says:

    “White has illegally abrogated the governor’s office.”

    That is a matter for the Illinois Supreme court to decide, and with any luck at all, they will take enough time, that the legislature will move forward with Blago’s impeachment.

    And, every day that Burris is NOT seated makes it a little tougher for him to be seated at all. :o)

  22. tanbark says:

    I don’t think Burris and his lawyer even tried to force white to co-sign his appointment. They’re hoping that they can stampede Burris into the Senate with all the “legality” nonsense, spiked with a good dash of shreiks about “racism”.

    Incidentally, Burris is saying that he and White are good buds.

    Evidently, not good enough. :o)

  23. tanbark says:

    Raina; I can’t remember for sure, but didn’t Craig say that he’d talked with the staffers; not their lawyers? If he cobbled up that report based on talking to everyone’s lawyer instead of the people themselves, and didn’t say so, that sucks, and we should have heard about it by now.

    And Bmaz makes a good point about Holder. It sounds like he lowballed the hell out of how hard he worked on Bubba to get Marc Rich that pardon, and the repubs are going to want to talk about that, and they should.

    I’ve been critical of Obama’s appointments. Too many Clinton retreads…

    But Leon Panetta at Langley is a good one.

  24. tanbark says:

    The Sun-Times is a conservative paper, but they’ve been right about some stuff, and also, wrong about some stuff, particularly the 16 phone calls between Blago/Harris and Emanuel.

    At least, I hope they’re wrong. :o)

  25. tanbark says:

    Raina; if Emanuel was doing barter-lite with Blago, tapdancing around giving him something, and that comes out, do you think Obama will try to hold on to him?

  26. tanbark says:

    Bmaz@74…what’s the makeup of the Ill. court? What makes you think they’ll fast-track the case of White’s refusal to sign?

    If it’s strongly dem, they could just sit on it for a couple of weeks, while the legislature moves on Blago’s impeachment.

  27. raina says:

    (eesh look at all my typos yesterday – I should not post past 11:00 :o)

    tanbark, I re-read the transcript of the press conference with Craig again and while it’s not clear how he conducted all of his interviews, this is the passage that left me with the impression that at least some of the discussions were conducted through their lawyers:

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/swee…..gibbs.html

    MR. CRAIG: Let me just say that to describe the process that we went through, we asked each individual who we thought might have had some contact or some communication that would be meaningful to, in an orderly way, consult with counsel to advise and assist them in reconstructing any contacts or communications. And that would include checking cell phone records or e-mails. And we inquired about that. And so it’s my belief that we’ve got the information that is required to answer the president-elect’s question. And I think this is the result of that inquiry.

    Q So was there any written communication?

    MR. CRAIG: I know of none, no.

    Q: Okay. And then why did Valerie Jarrett characterize this as a ridiculous proposition?

    MR. CRAIG: This was — she thought it was ridiculous for the governor of Illinois to be talking about being appointed to Barack Obama’s Cabinet at a time when he was under investigation, widely reported in the newspapers — under investigation for a variety of problems. And the reason that I believe that she thought it was ridiculous and said so was because that’s what she told her counsel, and that’s what her counsel told me.

    ####

    I think Obama, Craig, and David Axelrod have all been unequivocal in their positions that no deal making took place. Obama went even further and said his staff did nothing inappropriate, and Craig went even further still in his statements, such as this, also from the press conference:

    CRAIG: “They [Emanuel and Blago / Harris] discuss a variety of possible candidates. They discuss four or five; there’s actually six names that Rahm submits to the governor for consideration. But as the report says, there was no discussion, with Rahm or the governor or his chief of staff, about a cabinet position, a 501(c)(4) foundation, a private-sector position or any other personal benefit for the governor.”

    So those conversations; there was no reason for Rahm to suspect that there was any effort going on, at least with him. And he knew of no other effort with anybody else, to negotiate some quid pro quo in exchange for the Senate appointment.

    ####

    So to answer your second question, yes, I think if there is anything on the tapes that suggests Emanuel was offered, much less entertained, a deal for the Senate seat, he will have some ’splainin to do – and as we’ve seen with Bill Richardson and others, if he has not been totally candid, the President-elect will not hesitate to cut him loose.

    That is one of the main reasons I am inclined to believe Emanuel is telling the truth, at least about the Senate seat conversations. Brazenly ambitious though he may be, I simply don’t think he’s that stupid. If he thought there was anything incriminating on the tapes (as opposed to plain embarrassing, like candid opinions about the candidates and cursing up a storm), there was plenty of time for him to bow out for “family reasons” and keep his House seat.

    Speaking of the House seat, emptywheel meticulously noted that the internal report does not appear to cover those conversations. I don’t know what to make of that (sloppiness, or something more sinister?), but again – Emanuel could have bailed and remained in his House seat.