Trash Talk – Saturday Wildcard Weekend Fighting Edition

/in /by

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, Read more →

Share this entry

Burris: Why Not Withhold Committee Assignments?

/in /by

There’s been a lot of discussion about whether or not the Senate has the ability to refuse to seat Roland Burris–the guy Rod Blagojevich appointed to replace Obama. I see some merit on both sides, but above all, I see an awfully weird time to purport to discipline and rule of law.

That said, perhaps there is a reasonable solution which is entirely in line with other moves the Senate has made of late: seating Burris, but refusing to give him any committee assignments in the Senate, at least pending some resolution of Blagojevich’s affairs.

When long-serving Toobz Stevens was indicted, the Republicans took away his committee assignments. When Larry Craig got caught being gay, the Republicans took away his committee assignments.  (Somehow, David Vitter’s solicitation of a prostitute didn’t require he lose his committee assignments.)

While, in both cases, the Senate chose not to move to expel the Senators, pulling committee assignments was a way pull the perks of the seat in an attempt to convince the Senator to resign. While both retained a vote, they lost any real influence in the Senate.

Burris would, of course, have a means to get committee assignments: he could caucus with the Republicans, if they would have him. Which would make it a lot harder for Burris to run as an incumbent Democrat in 2010. Not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.

Maybe a week hanging out with the family has made me all Solomonic, but withholding all committee assignments from Burris seems like a sound way to discourage him from sticking around with a tainted–but (by all appearances) legally sound appointment. 

Share this entry

With Chris Cox, Suckers Are Everywhere

/in /by

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.

Share this entry

The Ugly Legal Optics Of Harry Reid's Burris Battle

/in , , , /by
h/t MCCS1977

h/t MCCS1977

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 Read more →

Share this entry

Trash Talk – 2009 NCAA Bowl Edition

/in /by

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

Share this entry

Vicki Iseman: Blanket Defamation

/75 Comments/in /by

I’m looking forward to Vicki Iseman’s defamation suit against the NYT, if only because we’re bound to see an argument over whether or not Iseman asked McCain to share a blankie with her. And an argument about the proper role of a lobbyist.

Iseman alleges two counts of defamation:

The first defamatory meaning was that Ms. Iseman exploited an alleged personal and social friendship with Senator McCain to obtain favorable legislative outcomes for her clients, engaging in "inappropriate" behavior that constituted a conflict of interest and a violation of professional and ethical norms in breach of the public trust. This meaning was communicated through the literal words of the article and also by implication, by what was intentionally suggested and implied "between the lines."

The second defamatory meaning was that Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain had engaged in an illicit and inappropriate romantic relationship while Ms. Iseman was a lobbyist conducting business on behalf of clients before the committee chaired by Senator McCain. This was also defamation per se under Virginia law. This meaning was also communicated through the literal words of the article and by implication, by what was suggested and implicated "between the lines."

Focusing on the second allegation first, they’re going to be relying heavily on the "between the lines" meaning here, since the original NYT article clearly printed Iseman’s and McCain’s denial of an affair and instead focused on the appearance of close ties–of any sort–with a lobbyist.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

What was at issue in the article was the appearance of an affair, not an affair itself, and the beliefs of McCain staffers about that appearance of an affair.

By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

Read more →

Share this entry

Fitzgerald Makes His Move for More Time; Blago Agrees!

/78 Comments/in , , /by

images5.thumbnail.jpegJust a few hours ago Marcy hypothesized on Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s next move. Well, he has made the move. In a pleading just filed and encaptioned: GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED FIRST MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RETURN INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h), Fitgerald relates:

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8), for a 90-day extension of time, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek the return of an indictment against the defendant…

As Marcy thought, the real meat of the motion is sealed, but the operative language that is public is as follows:

A number of factors have led to the government’s request for an extension and the length of the extension being sought. One factor that affects the length of the requested extension is that federal holidays have limited the dates and times that the government will be able to present evidence to the Grand Jury. The federal grand juries are not sitting during the week of December 22nd (Christmas week) or the week of December 29th (New Years Day week). The remaining factors that have led to the government’s request for an extension are stated in the Attachment hereto, which the government respectfully requests be placed under seal. The government is requesting that this Attachment be sealed so as not to compromise its ongoing investigation and so as not to reveal matters occurring before the Grand Jury.

But the Key language that I think any lawyer would find fascinating here is at the very end of the document:

Following telephone calls and/or meetings over the past week, counsel for both Blagojevich and Harris have represented that they do not object to this motion. (emphasis added)

As Marcy noted, this is in the face of the Senate Democrats trying to make the legally touchy case that they can avoid seating Burris and adds to the pressure on the legislative impeachment committee.

So why did Fitzgerald do it? Easy, he needs more time to get all the evidence, especially the most recently acquired material (which is still coming in on the Senate seat portion of the case) organized to his meticulous satisfaction.

The much better question is why the defendants both agreed to the delay with no opposition Read more →

Share this entry

Blagojevich’s Next Move

/37 Comments/in /by

It’s probably not a good thing for a potentially-tainted politically appointee–in this case, former IL AG Roland Burris, the guy whom Blagojevich appointed to replace Obama–to be engaging in discussions of precisely what kind of tool he is on the same day he’s appointed.

"I am not a tool of the governor. I’m a tool of the people of Illinois," Burris told the Tribune Tuesday evening. "If I was worried about the taint [of Blagojevich], I would never have accepted that. I don’t have any taint from Gov. Blagojevich."

As you’ve no doubt gathered, Blago’s move to name Burris as Obama’s replacement puts a lot of pressure on Senate Democrats to refuse to seat Burris (here’s the always-interesting John Kass on the race politics involved).

But it also puts more pressure on Fitzgerald to come forward with his case in the near future.

Remember that Fitz has 30 days to indict Blagojevich, or until January 6. He could, if he needed to, ask for an extension (in which case we’d only see the request but not the justification for it, which would probably remain sealed). But with this latest move from Blago, if Fitz does so, it will be against the background of Senate Democrats trying to make the legally touchy case that they can avoid seating Blago’s choice. If nothing else, Blagojevich’s move yesterday may have been an attempt to try to get Fitzgerald–for the second time–to reveal his cards before he otherwise intended to.

And, of course, it adds to the pressure on the legislative impeachment committee. While the committee wrestles to decide how legalistic they want to get with their inquiry, Blago is making very public moves to establish that he retains the full power of governor. While from my limited review, it looks like few are backing Blago’s move, this does give Blago some momentum in the face of the committee’s deliberation. 

One more detail. Remember that Blago’s defense attorney, said, two weeks ago, Blago would not appoint anyone. Yet even a week ago, Blago was offering the seat to Danny Davis.

Yet Burris was the second of two post-arrest finalists for Blagojevich when the governor offered him the job Sunday night. U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, a black congressman from the West Side, said he was offered the post by a Blagojevich representative a week ago and told the governor’s office Friday he declined the offer.

Read more →

Share this entry

Turnabout Would Be Fair Play: US Seeks 147 Year Torture Sentence

/15 Comments/in , , , /by

This report from MSNBC is almost sublimely ironic:

U.S. prosecutors want a Miami judge to sentence the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor to 147 years in prison for torturing people when he was chief of a brutal paramilitary unit during his father’s reign.
…
A recent Justice Department court filing describes torture — which the U.S. has been accused of in the war on terror — as a "flagrant and pernicious abuse of power and authority" that warrants severe punishment of Taylor.

"It undermines respect for and trust in authority, government and a rule of law," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Heck Miller in last week’s filing. "The gravity of the offense of torture is beyond dispute."
…
Elise Keppler, senior counsel at Human Rights Watch, said Monday that the organization has long pressed for investigations and prosecution of those responsible for torture around the world. The Emmanuel conviction is a big step forward, she said.

"This whole process has sent a message that when it comes to the most serious crimes, there cannot be impunity," Keppler said. "Without a penalty that fits the gravity of the crime, it risks sending a message that these crimes will be tolerated."

Huh. Go figure. I wonder who will prosecute the the denizens of the Bush Administration for the same acts?

Share this entry

Fitzgerald: You Can’t Have Witnesses, But You Can Have 4 Conversations

/121 Comments/in /by

I’m about to open Christmas presents, so I’ll have to put off any real comment on the news that Fitz is doing the legal work to release a very select group of intercepts to the Blagojevich impeachment committee. From his filing, it looks like he’s willing to release just four conversations.

After careful deliberation, the government applies for authorization to disclose a limited number of intercepted communications in redacted form. Although many relevant communications were intercepted, the government believes that, on balance, it is appropriate to seek the disclosure of four intercepted calls, in redacted form, to the Committee, and that disclosure of the calls by themselves would not interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation. These calls bear on a discrete episode of criminal conduct alleged in the complaint affidavit, specifically at Paragraph 68(e), and the calls are evidence of a criminal offense that the government was authorized to monitor under the wiretap order. Under separate cover and under seal, the government provides to this Court for its ex parte, in camera review, both a set of the full audio recordings of these four calls (Exhibit 3) and a set of proposed redacted recordings (Exhibit 4) omitting portions of the conversations not material to the episode described in Paragraph 68(e) of the complaint affidavit. 

It will not surprise you in the least that Paragraph 68(e) is one of the least sexy in the entire complaint.

Also during this call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Fundraiser A spoke about efforts to raise funds from two other individuals before the end of the year. Fundraiser A advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH that with respect to one of these individuals, Contributor 1, Lobbyist 1 had informed Fundraiser A that Contributor 1 was “good for it” but that Lobbyist 1 was “going to talk with you (ROD BLAGOJEVICH) about some sensitivities legislatively, tonight when he sees you, with regard to timing of all of this.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked, “Right, before the end of the year though, right?” Fundraiser A responded affirmatively. Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he knows Lobbyist 1 is “down there (Springfield, Illinois)” with Contributor 1 “pushing a bill.” In a series of calls since that time, it became clear that the bill Lobbyist 1 is interested in is in the Office of the Governor awaiting ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s signature. Read more →

Share this entry