March 29, 2024 / by 

 

Blago's Dog and Pony Presser

Okay EW is tied up and will be along in a bit, but Rod Blagojevich just had a fascinating press conference. Like a demented king (there is that Elvis parallel again) holding forth in his court. Probably not for long, but the guy knows how to play a room, you have to give him that.

Blago rambled around about how he has brought healthcare to the poor, which he actually did do, but of course it was how he did it that is the problem. The biggest LEGAL issue they’ve got on him for is that he pushed through the Family Care Program in Illinois. Doing so was completely illegal (the Legislature had said no once via a vote, and then once again via a separate modality). It was a way to get healthcare to those in the 400% poverty level; a really laudable policy if you like people, but really horrible legally.

As many of you have seen, I, in the long run, care very much about the process of law, and irrespective of the good motives, that process must be followed. He didn’t.

My take, Blago is on drugs, and damn good ones too. Jeebus, he was even quoting Alfred Lord Tennyson at one point. If not drugs, he is completely loopy. One of his former aides thinks that is the case. Josh Marshall agrees.

Discuss.

Update, from ew: Here’s what I think he’s doing. He is going to the voters over the head of the lege, exacting a cost for what they’re doing by painting himself as the champion of the people and the lege as just selfish politicians who want benefits they won’t give to taxpayers. He’s also taking a few specific counts and flipping them–concentrating on his goals, rather than his illegal means to get them done. From his presser:

The causes of the impeachment are because I’ve done things to fight for families that are with me here today.

bmaz mentioned the FamilyCare program above. From the Impeachment Report, starting on page 29.

The evidence showed that the Governor proceeded with the expansion of a program known as "FamilyCare" over the objection of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules ("JGAR"), despite the fact that, under state law, JCAR’s objection barred the Governor from doing so. The issue presented herein is not the merit of expanded health care coverage, but rather the authority of the Governor to ignore state law and the legislature, and impose an epansion of a program on the citizens of this State unilaterally, without legislative approval and without money appropriated for that purpose.

Blago, of course, is trying to make the issue the merit of expanded health care. Expect Blago to repeatedly bring up examples of the benefits of this program, and ignore the illegal means he used to put through the program. It’ll be particularly timely, because part of what Blago did was sustain SCHIP in IL, despite the Federal failure to extend SCHIP. So it’ll be timely.

Also note that he attributes his I-SaveRx Program (described starting on page 40) to Rahm Emanuel. If you’ve got any other doubts he’s trying to embarrass Rahm–and through him, Obama–this should end those doubts.

He may be crazy, but it’s a fairly smart strategy.


Eric Holder's New Pardon Controversy: Oops He Did It Again

graphic by twolf

graphic by twolf

Hot off the presses, Tom Hamburger and Josh Meyer at the LA Times have an exclusive on new information detailing Obama Attorney General nominee Eric Holder’s involvement in the ugly and controversial clemency grants given to members of the violent Puerto Rican terrorist groups FALN and Los Macheteros.

"I remember this well, because it was such a big deal to consider clemency for a group of people convicted of such heinous crimes," said Adams, the agency’s top pardon lawyer from 1997 until 2008. He said he told Holder of his "strong opposition to any clemency in several internal memos and a draft report recommending denial" and in at least one face-to-face meeting. But each time Holder wasn’t satisfied, Adams said.

The 16 members of the FALN (the Spanish acronym for Armed Forces of National Liberation) and Los Macheteros had been convicted in Chicago and Hartford variously of bank robbery, possession of explosives and participating in a seditious conspiracy. Overall, the two groups had been linked by the FBI to more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and hundreds of injuries.

The entire Justice Department was vehemently against Holder’s inexplicable determination to force the clemencies against all reason and factual considerations. One has to wonder exactly what was motivating Holder’s shameful refusal to back up his prosecutors and case agents (probably one of the reasons Holder has never been a favorite of line level DOJ personnel).

Holder stiffed prosecutors, FBI case agents and victims:

* He reminded Holder that Holder had in previous cases given "considerable weight" to the recommendations of federal prosecutors, and that any clemencies would "contravene the strong negative recommendation of two United States attorneys."

* Adams also warned that the convicts’ release would undermine at least four pending prosecutions and investigations of FALN members, and hamper FBI efforts to apprehend some of their co-conspirators and recover millions in bank money stolen by the FALN.

* Adams warned that the groups’ victims had not been notified.

Read the entire article, it is devastating. But, really, it is not that shocking in the least if your examine Eric Holder’s history; he is always willing to push for a cause in the name of political or financial opportunism. As the instant example shows, he will even sell out his own troops in the Justice Department instead of having their back like an appropriate leader. The same bad example set in other previously discussed instances of Holder’s questionable history (see: here, here, here, here and here).

The words of a victim who lost his father to the FALN sum up the Holder conundrum perfectly:

"Eric Holder has been nominated for the top law enforcement position in the country, yet, if this is true, he supported and pushed for the release of terrorists," said Joseph F. Connor, whose father, Frank, was killed in the FALN bombing of New York City’s Fraunces Tavern on Jan. 24, 1975. "How can he reconcile that?

As a parting shot, to add insult to injury, guess who Obama has drafted to be their designated shill to soft sell the remarkably disconcerting new revelations against their prized nominee Eric Holder?? Yep, that’s right, Alberto Gonzales’ attorney:

George Terwilliger, who served as deputy attorney general under President George H. W. Bush and was asked by the Obama transition team to comment, said that although he disagreed with the FALN clemency, Holder’s conduct in the case was appropriate.

Well, that sure ought to reassure one and all. A Bush family toady, currently shilling for the most disgraceful Attorney General in the nation’s history, whose foul stench still fills the air, is the guy Team Obama has picked to front for the new questionable choice to lead the beleaguered Department of Justice. Brilliant.


The Constitution and Roland Burris

Breaking News – OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE IS OVER:
USA Today relates that Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have, predictably, caved:

Senate Democrats will allow Roland Burris to take the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, the Associated Press reports.

this has been an Emptywheel Breaking News Update. Now back to your previously scheduled programming, er post, which describes exactly why Reid, Obama and the Senate Dems have engaged in one of the worst opening acts for an incoming US Congress ever. Fools on the Hill they are.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Roland Burris went to the hill in Washington DC Tuesday to claim the Senate seat he has been appointed to; but, as Jane Hamsher reports:

The Secretary of the Senate turned Burris away.

Chris Cilizza is on my teevee saying "everything in the Senate is like high school."

No kidding. The optics of this are just awful.

Harry Reid and Senate Democrats, not to mention Barack Obama, have indeed ginned up an extremely ugly mess with their anti-Burris, at all cost, stance; but, as I have been pointing out from the start (see here and here), their little passion play is also unconstitutional. Preeminent Constitutional scholars Bruce Fein and Erwin Chemerinsky agree.

Many people have argued that the Constitution, specifically Article I Section 5, gives Reid, Obama and the Senate Dems the leeway they need to exclude Burris. Not so fast says Fein:

In Powell v. McCormack (1969), the United States Supreme Court held that under Article 1, section 5, "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications [age, citizenship and residency] prescribed in the Constitution." The court made no distinction between representatives and senators, or between elected or appointed members of Congress. Speaking for the court, Chief Justice Earl Warren (whom President-elect Barack Obama admires) amplified that James Madison, father of the Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, were emphatic that Congress could not erect qualifications beyond the constitutional floor. Madison argued at the Constitutional Convention that it would be "an improper and dangerous power in the Legislature. The qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental articles in a Republican Gov’t and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. If the Legislature could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert the Constitution." Hamilton echoed: "The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen … are defined and fixed in the Constitution, and are unalterable by the legislature."

I know nothing of Roland Burris, in fact had never heard of him prior to this affair. I wish the vacancy of Illinois’ junior Senate seat could have been resolved much more cleanly, but Fein, and the authorities he cites, are dead on correct.

Oh, and Bruce has a bit to say about Harry Reid’s charade Tuesday morning wherein he had the Secretary of the Senate deny Burris’ credentials:

Democrats plan to exclude Mr. Burris by enforcing a rule requiring that credentials presented by incoming senators be countersigned by both a state’s governor and secretary of state. The rule, however, is unconstitutional as applied to senators from states that do not require countersignatures. The Illinois secretary, Jesse White, has asserted that he will not sign Mr. Burris’ documents, but it is unclear whether Illinois law requires that endorsement or whether it may be arbitrarily withheld – questions currently before the Illinois Supreme Court.

If the countersignature strategy fails, Democrats plan to raise an objection to Mr. Burris’ swearing in on the Senate floor and have his qualifications referred to the Rules Committee for up to 90 days. Democrats hope Mr. Blagojevich would have then been replaced by Mr. Quinn, who would be expected to revoke Mr. Burris’ appointment.

Neither of these maneuvers to block Mr. Burris’ appointment enjoys a crumb of legal constitutional standing.

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, concurs in every aspect of Fein’s analysis (as well as mine) and states:

The problem here is that Burris unquestionably was lawfully selected. According to the 17th Amendment, "When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." Illinois law gives this power to the state governor, and that is Blagojevich until he is impeached and found guilty.

Allowing the Senate to exclude Burris on any except the narrowest of grounds would create a dangerous precedent. It could open the door to the Senate or the House overturning the will of the people and excluding representatives under one or another pretext. If Burris — whose appointment meets the legal test, no matter what you think of Blagojevich — is not seated, other properly elected (or appointed) representatives also are at risk.

The Supreme Court’s conclusion could not be clearer or more on point: "In short, both the intention of the framers, to the extent that it can be determined, and an examination of basic principles of our democratic system persuade us that the Constitution does not vest in the Congress a discretionary power to deny membership by a majority vote."

Again, it may be uncomfortable, but this is exactly right. Has the irrefutable logic of the full panoply of legal authorities started to sink in to the high and mighty Democratic Senators who have feigned such outrage (shock I tell you, shock) at the thought of kindly 71 year old Roland Burris actually sitting with them in the august trappings of the ultimate club? At first blush, it appears that it may have. From the New York Times:

Mr. Burris, who was rebuffed by the Senate clerk earlier in the day, gained the support of Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, who broke with many of her Democratic colleagues and said that Mr. Burris should be seated despite having been appointed by Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, who is facing corruption charges.

Regardless of the charges against him, the governor still has the right to fill the Senate vacancy, Ms. Feinstein said, and keeping Mr. Burris from taking his seat could have implications for appointments by other governors.

Now, of course, it is pretty good odds that Dianne Feinstein’s sudden conversion to the Burris point of view (she was one of the fifty original signatories on Reid’s initial anti-Roland Burris letter) is just catty payback to Obama for snubbing her on the Leon Panetta CIA Director appointment heads up, but it is what it is. In a hilarious sidelight, the Times gave an indelible example of the perils of stripping down your reporting and research staff to cut costs when they reported:

Ms. Feinstein’s support is important because her committee has a say in whether Mr. Burris is qualified to serve.

Ahem, crack NYT reporters Carl Hulse and David Stout might want to take a look at the new configuration for the Senate for the 111th Congress that has Senator Feinstein as chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, not the Rules Committee, her former post and which would have been critically involved in potential Burris fights carried on by Harry Reid. The Intel Committee, not so much. Nice angle while it lasted I guess, eh boys?

Back to the point, however, it is not just Constitutional scholars backing up the legitimacy of Burris’ appointment from the outside, he has one inside, on his legal team, too. Former Baltimore Mayor, Rhodes Scholar and current Provost and Dean of Howard University Law School Kurt Schmoke. Kurt is one tenacious and brilliant advocate, and is representing Roland Burris. Schmoke and Burris’ other lead attorney, Tim Wright, appeared Tuesday on MSNBC’s Hardball and made it quite clear that Burris will not back down and will not be intimidated by Harry Reid, Obama and the rest of the politically self serving Democratic Senators. The Burris team knows they have the legal and Constitutional arguments in their favor and they appear ready to back up their claims.

Irrespective of what one thinks of Mr. Burris, the more important principle by far is adherence to the letter and intent of the Constitution, as well as deference to the individual states’, in this case Illinois, right to determine their own succession. As Fein notes:

The Senate leadership – both Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican – are committed to flouting their constitutional obligation to seat Sen.-designate Burris. President-elect Obama, a former professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, concurs in their lawlessness. Political expediency is their common North Star.

Neither of these maneuvers to block Mr. Burris’ appointment enjoys a crumb of legal constitutional standing. That Mr. Blagojevich was under a dark criminal and impeachment cloud when he elevated Mr. Burris is beside the point. President William Jefferson Clinton did not forfeit his power to appoint, sign legislation or negotiate treaties during his impeachment ordeal. And Democrats are not questioning Mr. Blagojevich’s general authority to discharge his gubernatorial responsibilities until or unless he is impeached, convicted and removed from office. Mr. Burris’ appointment has been made a lone exception for partisan political reasons, simpliciter. (emphasis added)

The extra-constitutional stance of Reid, Obama and the Senate Dems, out of sheer political expediency, sets a horrible standard, ripe for future abuse and mischief. Erwin Chemerinsky explains why:

Allowing the Senate to exclude Burris on any except the narrowest of grounds would create a dangerous precedent. It could open the door to the Senate or the House overturning the will of the people and excluding representatives under one or another pretext. If Burris — whose appointment meets the legal test, no matter what you think of Blagojevich — is not seated, other properly elected (or appointed) representatives also are at risk.

But the taint of Blagojevich’s alleged crimes does not justify ignoring the Constitution. For the last eight years, the Bush administration has ignored or twisted the Constitution to serve what it believed were higher ends. It would be an enormous mistake, as a new administration prepares to take charge, for Democrats to send the Senate down that same path. (emphasis added)

Once again, as painful as it may be, the Constitutional experts have hit the nail on the head here: Roland Burris and his esteemed legal team are correct; Burris is entitled to his seat in the United States Senate. On a positive note, with Inhofe, Cornyn and Kyl still around, Roland Burris will be far from the worse the Senate has to offer; and, unlike his new friend Dianne Feinstein, he hasn’t personally underwritten the evisceration of the Fourth Amendment and establishment of a US torture regime. So he’s got that going for him.

BREAKING UPDATE – JESSE WHITE CONFIRMS SCHOLARS, SAYS HAS BEEN USED BY REID

From WGN in Chicago Breaking News Desk:

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White said this morning he has been made "the fall guy" by the U.S. Senate, which he said is using him as an excuse not to seat Roland Burris.

"They could have seated him without my signature; my signature is not required," he told WGN-720AM’s John Williams.

The Senate barrred Burris Tuesday, saying he lacked proper credentials in that his appointment was not signed by White.

But White said today that "my signature is mostly ceremonial, rather than a point of law."

"They played a little bit of a game with him [Burris] yesterday," he added.

Asked by Williams if he had been made "the fall guy," White responded: "You’re absolutely correct."

(For the full interview (audio), click here.)

White said he had pledged, shortly after Gov. Rod Blagojevich was accused of trying to make a deal for his appointment to the Senate seat, not to sign off on anyone selected by Blagojevich. And he said he will continue to honor that pledge unless ordered otherwise by a court.

Yet at the same time he said he thought Burris should be admitted to the Senate and said he had the highest possible regard for him. He predicted Burris eventually will be seated.

If that is not about the last nail in the coffin of political opportunist shame for Harry Reid, the self important elitist Senate Democrats and, maybe worst of all, supposed Constitutional authority President-Elect Barack Obama, it is hard to imagine what would be. Real men of political genius.


Trash Talk – Saturday Wildcard Weekend Fighting Edition

It is Wildcard Saturday in the NFL! First up are today’s games; i will update later today with Sunday’s games. Oh, and due to dismal performance by my boy, it is no longer the "National Favre League", but is just back to NFL. Sadness.

Dirty Birds at Red Birds: First thing, are we a bunch of fucking pathetic mopes here in Phoenix or what? The NFL had to extend time for ticket sales to insure there was a sellout so that they could even put the freaking game on TeeVee here. Yes, the Cardinals are losers, and us natives know it.

This is the first home playoff game for the Cardinals since 1947. Sixty one years. The Cards do not have a wealth of experience with this stuff except for Kurt Warner. Of course, the Falcons ain’t got a lot either. Line is three points with the dogs being the homeboys.

I am a homeboy, and the Cards may be dogs, but they play well at home. They win their first home playoff game in 61 years.

Colts at Bolts: well, this ought to be quite a game what with the MVP philip Rivers playing in it and all; he really deserved it since he carried the team with LT having an off year.

Oh, wait, randiego got it wrong. The MVP is Marcy’s favorite quarterback in the world, PEYTON MANNING! This game is a pick em, but I am picking the Colts.

UPDATE:
Other Dirty Birds at Fish: Going into the weekend, all four road teams were favored over the homeboys. So far, that theory has been completely blown up. Quite frankly, I had a good inkling that the Cards would win, they are very good at home and the crowd noise gets going pretty good in the Big Toaster.

But here is another factor: No rookie quarterback has ever won a road playoff game. Pertinence to the current tilt: Baltimore has a rookie signal caller, Joe Flacco. Now, to be fair Flacco, unlike Matt Ryan who came out of the gate hot, has progressed slowly and steadily. And he is very bright. The odds say to go with Pennington and the hometown Fins if you ask me. If that were the only consideration; but it is not. There is also Ray Lewis, Ed Reed and the Ravens defense. And some guy named Parcells is lurking around too.

So, here is what I think it boils down to – the running game and short play action passing. In fairness, earlier this year the Ravens, led by Ray Ray and Bart Scott, totally shut down the much discussed Miami "wildcat" offense. Ravens factor back willis MacGahee had an up and down second half. Ronnie Brown has really come on. And don’t forget Ricky williams, the guy can still ball.

Bottom line: Chad Pennington’s short passing game carries the day and the Fish make it three out of four for home teams.

UPDATE TWO

Iggles at Vikings: Where are Purple People Eaters MadDog and MinnesotaChuck when you need them? I tell ya, nowhere to be found, that’s where. Shrinking violets, and that does not bode well for the Norske when their two most identifiable fans here at the blog are already hiding. But LabDancer is here representing. Somebody needs to, because half of the Vike’s season ticket holders refused to buy tickets to the game. They had to extend the NFL deadline twice, all the way to yesterday, in order to get the sales necessary to even broadcast the game on local TeeVee. That is worse than the Cardinals, which is a tough bar to clear. Crikey.

Both teams have pretty sound defenses, but the Iggles’ Dee, under Jim Johnson, is a lot more creative with their motion and blitz packages, which is a real bad thing for an untested effective rookie like Tavaris Jackson, who is not known for his defense reading capabilities in the first place. Donovan McNabb, however, has been on a roll since his "benching", and he has a fully capable Brian Westbrook today. Westbrook makes Philly tick; he is that dynamic.

Adrain Peterson is a stud running back, and he is going to get his yards today. But Bernard Berrian is the only receiving threat the Vikes have, and Asante Samuel should shut him down. I just don’t see Tavaris Jackson getting enough off versus Johnson’s blitzing for Peterson alone to carry the day. Eagles win one for the Gooper (Yep, I snuck a Spectre/Haggis joke in there).


Reid On Tape Manipulating Illinois Senate Seat Before Blago's Arrest

Thursday I described The Ugly Legal Optics Of Harry Reid’s Burris Battle. There is a new cloud dimming the already ugly optics. An article that just hit the website of the Chicago Sun Times reports Harry Reid already had his heavy ham fisted hand deep in Illinois state politics well before Blagojevich was arrested:

Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn’t want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones.

Rather, Reid called Blagojevich to argue he appoint either state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Sources say the Senate majority leader pushed against Jackson and Davis — both democratic congressmen from Illinois — and against Jones — the Illinois Senate president who is the political godfather of President-elect Barack Obama — because he did not believe the three men were electable. He feared losing the seat to a Republican in a future election.

This is certainly a stunningly rich development from about every perspective imaginable. Harry Reid has threatened to use the Capitol Police to forcefully haul Roland Burris off the Senate floor should he try to enter because he feels Burris is tainted by Blagojevich’s shady machinations of the open Senate seat. Only it turns out that Reid is the one smack in the middle of Blago’s machinations, not Burris. And it would appear he is on Pat Fitzgerald’s wiretaps doing so.

Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero confirmed that Reid (D-Nev.) and U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) — the new chief of the Senate Democratic political operation — each called Blagojevich’s campaign office separately Dec. 3. Sources believe that at least portions of the phone conversations are on tape.

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.

The Reid-Menendez calls came a day before a Dec. 4 conversation overheard on government wiretaps where Blagojevich says he “was getting ‘a lot of pressure’ not to appoint Candidate 5.” Candidate 5 is Jackson.

Did I mention that this is a nightmare from every available tangent? Not only is Harry Reid on tape with his finger stuck in the Illinois state pie, we now have Rahm Emanuel, the President-Elect’s Chief of Staff, running flak for Reid’s heavy handed interposition. Now it is certainly understandable that Emanuel and his boss, Obama, would have interest in Obama’s former Senate seat; but, again, the appearance here is unseemly at best.

That said, the main story for the moment is Harry Reid and the Senate leadership. There is no basis for believing Harry Reid is a racist, or that his actions here are particularly racially motivated, but it is no longer possible to dismiss the overtones that the picture must be starting to paint for some African American citizens in Illinois. Reid has been steadfastly determined to block the appointment of three black elected politicians – Emil Jones, Danny Davis and Jesse Jackson, Jr. because they are supposedly "not electable"; in favor of a white woman, Tammy Duckworth who has, you know, been previously found unelectable by the voters of Illinois. Or another white woman, Lisa Madigan, who managed to get elected mostly on the coattails of her powerful Chicago machine daddy. Lovely; what a picture that paints.

Oh, and now that nice gentlemanly 71 year old Roland Burris, another black man, who has previously been elected to statewide office in Illinois, can’t be permitted in the hallowed Senate doors either. George Wallace must be laughing his butt off at Reid’s bad optics and unseemly folly. And this is all occurring over the seat of the only black man in the lilly white United States Senate that was just vacated by the groundbreaking President-Elect Barack Obama. Malignant idiocy abounds.

Harry Reid will be the featured guest on Meet the Press Sunday morning. Jane Hamsher has already raised the curious difference between how Reid and the Democratic leadership has treated Roland Burris and how they handled and accepted Joe Lieberman, Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Ted Stevens and Larry Craig, or for that matter the evisceration of Habeas Corpus, the Fourth Amendment and the Geneva and UN Conventions against torture. No moral leadership whatsoever was shown on any of those; anybody think it will occur to self aggrandized inquisitor David Gregory to examine Harry Reid over the discrepancy?

I’m taking odds, because I don’t think David Gregory has the journalistic chops or the moral guts to ask the hard questions that have been asked here. Any takers?


With Chris Cox, Suckers Are Everywhere

Remember just a few days ago when SEC Chairman Chris Cox was doing his best George Bush imitation and trying to write his history before his term of shame was over?

Cox said the SEC’s emphasis on enforcement was as strong as it had ever been. "We’ve done everything we can during the last several years in the agency to make sure that people understand there’s a strong market cop on the beat," he said.

"That’s why Madoff is such a big asterisk," he added. "The case is very troubling for that reason. It’s what the SEC’s good at. And it’s inexplicable."

Of course that was after the Madoff Ponzi scandal had already hit. Cox must have thought he had weathered the worst that could hit the beleaguered SEC he had personally helped neuter. Not so fast Chris, because today we have more instances from the "who could have imagined" files; from Bloomberg:

U.S. regulators working to untangle Bernard Madoff’s alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme are probing other money managers suspected of using similar tactics, two people with knowledge of the inquiries said.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is pursuing at least one case in which investors may have been cheated out of as much as $1 billion, according to one person, who declined to name the manager and asked not to be identified because the probe isn’t public.

Regulators may discover additional Ponzi arrangements as declining stock markets prompt investors to withdraw their cash and they question how their money is being managed. This week, the SEC said it halted what the agency described as a $23 million scam targeting Haitian-Americans, and said the Florida- based operators had tried as recently as last month to bring in more investors.

Chris Cox must be packing some pretty big asterisks to make the statement that he has been a "strong market cop". With the SEC run by capital cronies like Cox, we are all the suckers.


Bush DOJ Is Now Filene's Basement for Corporate Crooks

The fire sale by the Bush Administration in a last gasp to coddle corporate polluters, crooks and malefactors (i.e. friends and family) is on at the Department of Justice. From Carrie Johnson at the Washington Post:

The Justice Department has reached more than a dozen business-related settlements since the presidential election, with more in the pipeline for January, prompting lawyers and interest groups to assert that companies are seeking more favorable terms before the new administration arrives.

A review of 15 agreements involving corporations since early November suggests that much of the alleged misconduct dates back five years or more, provoking questions about why the cases took so long to mature and why resolutions are coming with only weeks left in President Bush’s term.

Johnson’s article discusses, among several, the case of United States v. Siemens. This case sticks out like a sore thumb. There are actually four different cases consolidated against Siemens – against their home company in Germany, and against each of their subsidiaries in Bangladesh, Venezuela and Argentina. How deep, pervasive and criminal was the conduct of Siemens in their worldwide bid to defraud the US Government and others? Glad you asked; it was so bad that:

The company hired a law firm and accounting experts to probe its problems, ultimately paying more than $776 million to advisers who reviewed millions of documents and interviewed 1,750 employees…

So what basement bargain settlement did Siemens get?

"Under the terms of the plea agreement announced today, first, Siemens AG will plead guilty and has pled guilty to one count of failure to maintain internal controls and a one-count books and records violation. In addition, three Siemens subsidiaries, those located in Bangladesh, Venezuela and Argentina, have pled guilty to conspiring to violate provisions of the FCPA.

"Second, Siemens will pay a criminal fine to the United States in the amount of $450 million.

Here is the kicker: Siemens retains full rights to keep on contracting with the US Government and its agencies; no debarment, which should be a given for fraud of this scale. The Bushies are always ready willing and able to let big corporate criminal right back in the door to rape, pillage and plunder again.

The Bush Basement Sale is on for another eighteen days, step right up and get yer bargains!


The Ugly Legal Optics Of Harry Reid's Burris Battle

Earlier this morning, Jane wrote a fantastic post, "Burris and Blago: What Happens Now?", that lays out most all of the concerns with the obstreperous position taken by Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership. I would like to follow up on a couple of legal points inherent in the discussion.

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White: As you have probably heard, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has refused to certify Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris. The problem I see with this is that there is no legal basis whatsoever for SoS White’s conduct in this regard.

White appears to be abrogating Illinois law all by himself, and he simply does not have the power to do that. Signing the certification is a ministerial act, not an established right of veto. The decision on who to appoint is the governor’s and the governor’s alone under Illinois law; there is no power promulgated for the SoS to have decision making authority. If White can simply refuse to sign the certification, and that stops the process in it’s tracks, he would have unmitigated veto power over the appointment. He does not.

Burris has obviously figured this out and has brought action demanding the Secretary of State endorse the certification.

Burris’s lawyers argued that White’s duties are strictly ministerial and that he doesn’t have the discretion to withhold his certification of Blagojevich’s selection.

“Any additional state requirement that Roland Burris must seek or obtain approval of the secretary of state to qualify as U.S. senator would be unconstitutional,” Wright said in the filing.

Whether you like Burris or not, whether you despise Blagojevich or not, Burris has now been duly appointed by a sitting governor; his appointment, absent evidence to the contrary, is valid on its face. White should sign the certification forthwith, refusal to do so is outside of his authority and is costing the citizens of Illinois valuable court time, resources and money; effectively a breach of White’s fiduciary duty to the state.

Harry Reid has lobbied against Illinois having a special election to fill Obama’s Senate seat, which they could easily hold concurrent with the election they will be forced by law to have for Rahm Emanuel’s open seat in Illinois’ 5th district. Reid is likely personally responsible for there being no opportunity for the public to vote on the next senator; now Reid is urging extra-legal (effectively ultra-vires) action by Illinois. He should butt out.

Powell v. McCormack: But wait, there is more! Yep, Harry Reid, who couldn’t be bothered to bring his legislative acumen to bear to protect the 4th Amendment in the FISA battle, is now going to expend every inch of his soul, including having capitol police physically restrain a duly appointed black man from taking his seat in the Senate. Again, simply brilliant optics. Or not; really not. As Jane indicated, there are basically two views on the propriety of this blocking action, that is not viable (the "Lemieux position") and that it is complicated, but viable (the "Balkin position").

I have read both Balkin and Lemieux. In my somewhat suspect eyes, Lemieux has the, by a good measure, more legally sound take. Doesn’t mean a more contrived view like Balkin’s won’t carry the day if this matter is litigated; but I sure think Lemieux’s is a lot cleaner and truer to Powell v. McCormack and the Constitutional intent.

…missed in many discussions about the Burris appointment is the fact that the Senate is probably unable to prevent him from being seated as a matter of constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 (and 8-0 among justices deciding on the merits) in Powell v. McCormack that "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution." It is possible to distinguish the cases — the fact that Burris is appointed obviously mitigates the problems with Congress interfering with the integrity of elections that Douglas discusses in his concurrence. Still, the bottom line of Warren’s majority opinion is unequivocal and directly on point; if Burris were to litigate an exclusion a lower court would almost certainly rule in his favor, and I doubt that the Supreme Court would overrule. The Senate could expel him after seating with a 2/3 majority, but (absent strong evidence that Burris obtained the appointment illegitimately) this seems unlikely. Reid’s remedy is likely to be to prevent him from joining the Democratic caucus.

Again, we don’t have to like it, but the better take on the law rests with Burris being seated pursuant to his appointment. If there is no evidence of corruption or wrongdoing with his appointment process (and acts he took that you disagree with when he was previously in elected office do not count in that consideration), and there is none I have seen, Burris ought to be seated so that Illinois is fully represented and so that Democrats have a full complement of Senators for the difficult work that will start on January 20. Harry Reid is making an ass out of himself and Democratic Leadership (to the limited extent there actually is Democratic Leadership).

You have to hand it to Reid, though — managing to look less responsible and likable than Rod Blagojevich is a very impressive feat of sheer political incompetence.


Trash Talk – 2009 NCAA Bowl Edition

Hey, it turns out we have a New Year going here! Happy New Year to yours, mine and 2009. 2008 basically sucked on a lot of important fronts, but it did lay the groundwork for hope. But that is the serious stuff, right now we got some college football to play. Who is your team, and who are they going to beat in what bowl? Since ASU didn’t quite make the grade this year (that is an understatement) I will have to roll with the USC Trojans. Michigan is nowhere to be found either, so EW is going to have to pick a horse. Will it be Traveler and the Trojans??

Now I really like JoePa and the Nittany Lions, but they have a problem. They went and joined the Big 10. You simply cannot do that and expect to beat USC (or anybody else in the PAC 10 for that matter) in a bowl game. Especially the Rose Bowl.

Here is a list of all the bowl games. Hoot, holler and trash it up please. You owe it to yourself and all of us!

2008 BOWL SCHEDULE
Date/time Bowl/site Matchup Visitor Home Weather

Thu. Jan. 1
11:00 a.m. Outback Bowl
Tampa Southeastern vs.
Big Ten South Carolina Gamecocks Iowa Hawkeyes 52 °F

Thu. Jan. 1
1:00 p.m. Gator Bowl
Jacksonville Big 12 vs.
Atlantic Coast Nebraska Cornhuskers Clemson Tigers

Thu. Jan. 1
1:00 p.m. Capital One Bowl
Orlando Southeastern vs.
Big Ten 16 Georgia Bulldogs 19 Michigan State Spartans 54 °F

Thu. Jan. 1
5:00 p.m. Rose Bowl
Pasadena Big Ten vs.
Pacific-10 6 Penn State Nittany Lions 5 USC Trojans 49 °F

Thu. Jan. 1
8:00 p.m. Orange Bowl
Miami Big East vs.
Atlantic Coast 12 Cincinnati Bearcats 21 Virginia Tech Hokies

Fri. Jan. 2
2:00 p.m. Cotton Bowl
Dallas Southeastern vs.
Big 12 20 Mississippi Rebels 8 Texas Tech Red Raiders 55 °F

Fri. Jan. 2
5:00 p.m. Liberty Bowl
Memphis Southeastern vs.
Conference USA Kentucky Wildcats East Carolina Pirates 46 °F

Fri. Jan. 2
8:00 p.m. Sugar Bowl
New Orleans Mountain West vs.
Southeastern 7 Utah Utes 4 Alabama Crimson Tide 22 °F

Sat. Jan. 3
12:00 p.m. International Bowl
Toronto Mid-American vs.
Big East Buffalo Bulls Connecticut Huskies

Mon. Jan. 5
8:00 p.m. Fiesta Bowl
Glendale Big Ten vs.
Big 12 10 Ohio State Buckeyes 3 Texas Longhorns 6 °F

Tue. Jan. 6
8:00 p.m. GMAC Bowl
Mobile Mid-American vs.
Conference USA 23 Ball State Cardinals Tulsa Golden Hurricane

Thu. Jan. 8
8:00 p.m. BCS Championship
Miami Southeastern vs.
Big 12 1 Florida Gators 2 Oklahoma Sooners


John McCain The Narcissistic Carpetbagger

pastedGraphic2Michael Leahy, in today’s Washington Post, has an extended front page article on the genesis of John McCain’s political career and consuming lust for the Presidency of the United States. Previous reports here have delineated McCain’s narcissistic and arrogant willingness to say or do anything that will benefit his interest of the moment. Leahy fleshes out the personal history behind McCain’s craven thirst for power.

But McCain had the most audacious dream of all, and he shared his vision one day with a group of fellow POWs. "He was talking about his father to us and then he said: ‘I want to be president of the United States. Someday I’m going to be president,’ "

Not at all dissuaded, McCain offered his view on the meaning of real command, shaped in part by his father’s perspective on genuine power. He wanted to be the one who made the decisions, McCain said, and his father had taught him that even such impressive-sounding jobs as chief of naval operations, the service’s highest uniformed position, didn’t always provide that opportunity. The only job that guaranteed it was that of president, McCain believed.

"Pursuit of command," as McCain often referred to it, was an ethos bordering on obsession in his family, and it was in Vietnam that he embraced it. But though McCain was the son and grandson of admirals, he decided his pursuit would be in another arena — politics, where he would come to define success not in terms of ideas or legislation but in fulfilling his family’s ideals of leadership and character.

That has always been it with McCain; he craved the power, but didn’t give a damn about actually knowing, working on or fulfilling the duties of an elected political servant. To John Sidney McCain III, he has always been the entitled master, never a dutiful public servant. It is his due as a McCain. And if you get in his way, he bullies, attacks and vilifies; it is his way, always has been.

Leahy’s article paints a picture of McCain as a man both shallow and hollow, compulsively driven to measure up to both his father and grandfather, both four star command Navy Admirals. The problem was, John Sidney McCain III possessed neither the brains, dedication nor other "right stuff" of his forebears. They were men of distinction; he was a belligerent, self indulgent screw up from early childhood. He was never, never going to attain the command rank of Admiral, much less a four star one. Had McCain not recklessly gotten shot down over Hanoi and been a POW, for five and a half years as he relentlessly reminds us, he may well have been sent packing by the Navy.

So McCain set off to gain the political power and Presidency to which he laid gilded claim. He initially set his beady sights on a Florida district held by a firmly ensconced democrat, Charlie Bennett, but

Republican leaders, citing private polls, told McCain he needed to serve in another office and build his political profile before running for Congress. But McCain was insistent. … "Well, if I can’t beat him, then I’ll find somebody else I can whip."

McCain spent more time with Tower and Cohen, plotting strategy for a 1982 House race. But where should McCain run? "We discussed Florida, because he’d been a resident there," Cohen remembers. "But the thinking became that he should run in Arizona.

Arizona also appeared attractive for reasons that had nothing to do with ideology: Its population was booming … a whole new bloc of voters that McCain and his allies believed would be unmoved by charges that a political upstart from out of state was a carpetbagger.

In early 1981, a recommendation from Cohen led to the first meeting between McCain and political strategist Jay Smith … But Smith was skeptical about an outsider moving to Arizona and running for a congressional seat that didn’t yet exist. "Where in Arizona are you going to do this?" Smith asked him, as the strategist recalls.

" ‘We’ll figure that out,’ " McCain answered.

Of course; because he is John Sidney McCain III, and the angry boy is simply entitled to whatever he lays claim to, without the usual requisite work, knowledge and effort, and woe be anyone that gets in his way. But McCain was a carpetbagger, and the worst kind of narcissistic opportunistic carpetbagger at that.

Jay Smith and other friends remember that McCain’s entry into politics preceded his discovery of a complete set of policy positions, particularly on social and economic matters. While laying the groundwork for the 1982 congressional race, he told Smith that he didn’t have a stance on abortion. When Smith responded that he needed to have one, McCain said he could see both sides. "He wasn’t an issues guy," Smith recalls. "Abortion wasn’t an issue that he cared about or had thought much about. . . . We went through that on a lot of different things."

Friends dating to his days as a midshipman at the Naval Academy can’t remember McCain ever espousing a political philosophy, so it wasn’t a surprise that ideology played almost no role in propelling him into politics.

Leahy’s Post article describes how McCain was hoping to be able to run in a new Congressional district Arizona was gaining due to redistricting from population growth, but that was not to be.

In a blow to McCain’s grand plan, Arizona’s new congressional seat had been placed in the Tucson area rather than Phoenix. But McCain and Smith still entertained a last hope. For a year, Arizona political observers had speculated that John Rhodes, the dean of the state’s House delegation, might be close to retiring from Congress. If Rhodes were to step aside, his solidly Republican 1st District seat in Maricopa County would be ideal turf for McCain.

As a native Arizonan around at that time and very familiar with the Rhodes family, I can tell you that is exactly what happened. But there is much more to this story that Leahy does not relate. Rhodes had been contemplating retirement, but had not made his mind up. In fact, the word was that he was reconsidering and leaning toward one more term, which would have been a boon to the state as Rhodes was a 15 term living institution in Congress and had been minority leader for 3 or four terms; a great man, of incredible stature and accomplishment, still healthy and able to serve.

John J. Rhodes was everything to Arizona that the entitled John McCain has never been; a man who cared about his constituents, who cared about the health and future of the state, and who worked his butt off tirelessly to serve it. John Rhodes was a man, unlike John McCain, who had earned his place and the time and space to determine for himself whether he would continue on in his hometown seat. But that didn’t work for John McCain; it wasn’t convenient for his unbridled ambition. There was a deadline for establishing residency in a district so he could announce his candidacy and that was the one he wanted. But He had to know where he was going to run so he could hastily buy a house in that district to plop his carpetbag down in.

John Sidney McCain III wanted his district, and he wanted it now, and John Rhodes was in his way. As has been his lifelong method, McCain became infuriated and threw a belligerent tantrum. McCain started badgering Rhodes as to whether he was going to retire or not. It did not endear McCain to Rhodes in the least, nor the longtime Arizonans who knew of McCain’s disrespectful antics. Rhodes got so pissed at him that he refused to tell McCain he was retiring and kept telling him he was thinking about running again, even though he had pretty much decided to retire.

Legend has it that it got so bad Barry Goldwater had a little chat with McCain about backing off and giving Rhodes his space and some respect. McCain, of course, ignored him too because he was in a hurry. McCain really wanted Rhodes’ seat, but there was no way he could formally announce before Rhodes announced his retirement. McCain had at least one, maybe two, other lesser options, for a place to make his carpetbag run from, that he was looking at; the new district formed in the more Democratic Tucson area, and at least one, if not more, outside of Arizona. But he needed to get residency wherever it was going to be, and he was not willing to wait for two more years if Rhodes decided to serve one last term. So John Sidney McCain III disrespected both John Rhodes and Barry Goldwater, the living legends of such character and stature that they were the ones called on by Congress to go up to the White House and tell Richard Nixon the gig was up in Watergate and that he had to resign. McCain just bulled his way into that which he felt he was entitled to, as he always has throughout his nepotistic, silver spoon, legacy bequeathed life.

Rhodes finally relented and announced his decision to retire. That still left the gilded McCain with one little problem. He didn’t even live in the district he had just bullied Rhodes out of; he needed a house. Gilded though he was, McCain didn’t have the money to buy a house on the spot, but the fortunate son had a beer heiress sugarmomma wife who did. As Leahy relates in the Post:

Smith was monitoring a Rhodes news conference while talking on the phone with McCain. Learning that Rhodes would not be seeking reelection, the two men shouted excitedly. Later that same day, during another phone conversation, Smith could hear McCain talking to his wife in the background. "Did you buy the house?" McCain asked her.

In the next instant, McCain told Smith, "Cindy just bought us a house in the 1st District."

McCain ended up having three primary-election opponents, but he enjoyed the advantages that counted most in the race: the largest campaign war chest; support from his father-in-law’s and wife’s well-heeled friends and associates, including a Phoenix real estate developer named Charles Keating, who would help to raise more than $100,000; a skillful TV ad campaign from Jay Smith that featured a clip of a limping McCain taking his first steps on American soil after his release from Hanoi; glowing video testimonials from national figures such as Cohen and Tower, the latter of whom came into the 1st District to campaign for McCain; and flattering media attention.

And thus was born the illusory political legend of John Sidney McCain III. As shallow and hollow then as it is now. Natives and other longtime Arizonans remember the arrogant and shameful way McCain started his political career here. They know that John McCain doesn’t give a damn about anything but himself; never has and never will. Barry Goldwater distrusted and disliked him from the moment of his tawdry bullrush of John Rhodes.

"Goldwater said privately that McCain was a carpetbagger," recalls Nixon White House counsel John Dean, a close family friend of the Goldwaters.

Go read the entire article by Michael Leahy, it is excellent. Then couple that with Tim Dickenson’s Rolling Stone tome on McCain and the Los Angeles Times frightening history of McCain as a Naval pilot. John Sidney McCain III is not the man he holds himself out to be, and he never was. He is an angry, narcissistic curmudgeon who should never be given the privilege of unpacking his tattered carpetbag in the hallowed halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Copyright © 2024 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/author/bmaz/page/78/