As you may know, President Obama came to Phoenix in order to roll out his $75 Billion Plan to Fight Home Foreclosures. This was exciting for me, because Obama spent last night at a resort, Montelucia, about 3/4 of a mile from my house. Lots of excitement; even more jammed up traffic yesterday afternoon and evening. Still, all in all, pretty exciting for an old desert dweller. Our dog, Kiki, is still barking at all the helicopters. Interlaced into this post will be a series of pictures taken by various Phoenicians and submitted to the Arizona Republic for open use on their website. I would have taken proprietary photos for Emptywheel, especially of the shots going down the road right by my house and entering Montelucia, but, alas, I was tied up with conference calls with multiple attorneys, all of whom are every bit as annoying as I am. Trust me on the latter.

From the New York Times:

President Obama pledged on Wednesday to help as many as 9 million American homeowners refinance their mortgages or avert foreclosure, an initiative he said would shore up distressed housing prices, stabilize neighborhoods and slow a downward spiral that he said was “unraveling homeownership, the middle class, and the American Dream itself.”

The plan, more ambitious than many housing analysts had expected, was unveiled by Mr. Obama in a high school gymnasium here, in a community that is among the nation’s hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis.

“This plan will not save every home, but it will give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild,” the president told the crowd. “It will prevent the worst consequences of this crisis from wreaking even greater havoc on the economy. And by bringing down the foreclosure rate, it will help to shore up housing prices for everyone.”

In a nutshell from the LA Times, the plan would:

• Remove restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that prohibit the institutions, both taken over by the government last year, from refinancing mortgages they own or have guaranteed when more is owed on a home than it is worth. The White House says this could reduce monthly payments for up to 5 million homeowners.

• Create incentives for lenders to modify subprime loans at risk of default or foreclosure. For lenders that agree to reduce rates to levels borrowers can afford, the government will make up part of the difference between the old monthly payment and the new payment. Participating lenders also will be required to cut payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower’s income. Up to 4 million homeowners could benefit.

• Keep mortgage rates low for millions of middle-class families seeking new mortgages. Using money already approved by Congress for this purpose, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve will continue to buy Fannie and Freddie mortgage-backed securities to maintain stability and liquidity in the marketplace. The department, through its existing authority, will provide up to $200 billion in capital for this purpose.

• Pursue reforms to help families avoid foreclosure. The administration will continue to support changing bankruptcy rules so judges can reduce mortgages on primary homes to their fair market value, as long as the borrower sticks to a court-ordered repayment plan. As part of the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama signed into law on Tuesday, the administration will award $2 billion in competitive grants to communities experimenting with innovative ways to prevent foreclosures.

Here is the detailed plan (pdf) as put out by the White House. Obama was wildly received by the audience from the video I caught, and there were people camping out in line outside the high school he spoke at over a day ahead of his appearance. There was only one serious group of protesters, and they were not anti-Obama. They were demanding justice against our locally oppressive and deadly Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Ya gotta love that.

All in all, a short, but victorious, visit from the President of the United States.

Graphic by Darkblack

The news last week that President Obama had bought into and signed off on the full boat of shameful state secrets assertion in the case of Binyan Mohamed v Jeppesen Dataplan set off a wave of criticism. Obama came to the criticism the old fashioned way, he earned it by breaking his campaign promise and continuing the wretched excess of unitary secrecy. Obama’s about face, and turn to the dark side of Bush/Cheney secrecy shocked even Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Schroeder when confronted with it at the Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan hearing.

That is the part of Obama’s war on Binyam Mohamed through Bush style secrecy that has been widely reported, but there is much more that is not as well known. It ought to be. From this morning’s Guardian:

A policy governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects in Pakistan that led to British citizens and residents being tortured was devised by MI5 lawyers and figures in government, according to evidence heard in court.
…
The existence of an official interrogation policy emerged during cross-examination in the high court in London of an MI5 officer who had questioned one of the detainees, Binyam Mohamed, the British resident currently held in Guantánamo Bay. The officer, who can be identified only as Witness B, admitted that although Mohamed had been in Pakistani custody for five weeks, and he knew the country to have a poor human rights record, he did not ask whether he had been tortured or mistreated, did not inquire why he had lost weight, and did not consider whether his detention without trial was illegal.
…
Mohamed was eventually able to tell lawyers that before being questioned by MI5 he had been hung from leather straps, beaten and threatened with a firearm by Pakistani intelligence officers. After the meeting with MI5 he was "rendered" to Morocco where he endured 18 months of even more brutal torture, including having his genitals slashed with a scalpel. Some of the questions put to him under torture in Morocco were based on information passed by MI5 to the US.

The Guardian has learned from other sources that the interrogation policy was directed at a high level within Whitehall and that it has been further developed since Mohamed’s detention in Pakistan. Evidence of this might emerge from 42 undisclosed US documents seen by the high court and sent to the MPs and peers on the intelligence and security committee (ISC).

To make this crystal clear, similar to what is going on in the Ninth Circuit in Mohamed v. Jeppesen, the High Court in London is being stymied in its inquiry into the criminal torture and abuse of Mr. Binyan Mohamed by a recalcitrant British government that is desperate to conceal its war crimes. But the key part here is how the Brits are concealing, and that is with the direct and active complicity of President Barack Obama and his Administration.

The path of this obstruction is so obnoxious, the Brits must have stolen it right out of Dick Cheney’s playbook. Again from the Guardian:

Lawyers representing Mohamed went to the high court in an attempt to secure the disclosure of the documents, but the court reluctantly refused earlier this month after David Miliband, the foreign secretary, said such a move would damage national security and UK-US relations.

Miliband’s position in the affair came under renewed attack yesterday after it emerged that his officials solicited a letter from the US state department to back up his claim that if the evidence was disclosed, Washington might stop sharing intelligence with Britain. The claim persuaded the high court judges to suppress what they called "powerful evidence" relating to Mohamed’s ill-treatment.

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, today described the move as possibly "one of the most outrageous deceptions of parliament, the judiciary and the British people. There must be an immediate investigation, with all related correspondence made public."

Edward Davey is right, but what is more outrageous is that the Obama Administration appears to have happily joined in the scurrilous obstruction.

A flurry of letters between the British Foreign Office and the US State Department has revealed that Washington did threaten to withdraw intelligence-sharing with Britain if documents related to the alleged torture of a British terrorism detainee in Guantanamo Bay were made public.

The High Court in London said on Wednesday the Foreign Office had refused to allow the torture documents to be revealed because of a "threat" from Washington to stop sharing intelligence with Britain.

The US warning, related to the case of British detainee Binyam Mohamed, was promptly denied by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who insisted that there had been no threat from the US to "break off intelligence co-operation".

Now, I would like to make clear that the immediately above details and quote references letters and communications from last fall through shortly before Obama took office. But the salient fact is that, as with their actions in the wiretapping cases, al-Haramain and Mohamed ve Jeppesen, the Obama Administration has done absolutely nothing to change the egregious policy. They just keep following the Bush/Cheney script and, it would appear, that is still the case after a meeting between Secretay of State Clinton and Millbrand in the first week of February. Perhaps the best evidence of the Obama Administration’s determination to maintain complicity on the bogus obstruction of the case in England occurred last week when one of Binyam’s attorneys sent a letter to Obama:

US defence officials are preventing Barack Obama from seeing evidence that a former British resident held in Guantánamo Bay has been tortured, the prisoner’s lawyer said last night, as campaigners and the Foreign Office prepared for the man’s release in as little as a week.

Clive Stafford Smith, the director of the legal charity Reprieve, which represents Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed, sent Obama evidence of what he called "truly mediaeval" abuse but substantial parts were blanked out so the president could not read it.

In the letter to the president [PDF] , Stafford Smith urges him to order the disclosure of the evidence.

Stafford Smith tells Obama he should be aware of the "bizarre reality" of the situation. "You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command."

It is understood US defence officials might have censored the evidence to protect the president from criminal liability or political embarrassment.

The letter and its blanked-out attachment were disclosed as two high court judges yesterday agreed to reopen the court case in which Mohamed’s lawyers, the Guardian and other media are seeking disclosure of evidence of alleged torture against him. Mohamed’s lawyers are challenging the judges’ gagging order, claiming that David Miliband, the foreign secretary, changed his evidence.

That’s right, Mohamed’s attorney was begging for assistance for Mohamed and an order releasing the evidence of Binyam’s torture, and it was censored! Oh, and crickets has been the response from Obama. That is diametrically, and cravenly so, opposed to the new, opposite of Bush/Cheney, open policy Obama promised during his campaign.

President Barack Obama has been in office less than a month, yet has been confronted head on with not one, but two, cases directly involving the life and human rights of Binyam Mohamed. Both cases squarely presented an opportunity for Mr. Obama to make the break from the oppressive rules of secrecy and torture ingrained by the Bush/Cheney regime. On both cases Obama threw his lot in with the secrecy and torture crowd.

Why does President Obama Hate The Truth On Binyan Mohamed?

P.S. – For more on the British Binyman Mohamed case, please visit Valtin for his take.

Chicago tenor Roland Burris is singing a new tune:

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governor’s brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.

Burris’ latest comments in Peoria Monday night were the first time he has publicly said he was actively trying to raise money for Blagojevich. Previously Burris has left the impression that he always balked at the issue of raising money for the governor because of his interest in the Senate appointment.

In comments to reporters after appearing at a Democratic dinner, the senator several times contradicted his latest under-oath affidavit that he quietly filed with the Illinois House impeachment panel earlier this month. That affidavit was itself an attempt to clean up his live, sworn testimony to the panel Jan. 8, when he omitted his contacts with several Blagojevich insiders.

Now this is something that Marcy (see: here and here) predicted, as did many of you. So, it is not exactly a shocking Captain Renault moment. That said, it is still extremely damning and is going to lead to a justified uproar. Already Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is calling for a deeper investigation, although she has held short of claiming perjury by Burris.

It is just the bundling efforts that Marcy predicted may be in play that appear to be in issue:

Burris said Robert Blagojevich told him, “‘We need to raise some funds. We hope that you could probably get some of your friends together.’ I said, ‘What type of money we looking for?’ He says, ‘Can you raise us 10-or-15 thousand dollars?’

Here are the new details Burris has copped to as of last night:

“So some time shortly after Obama was elected, the brother called,” Burris said last night of Robert Blagojevich. “And now in the meantime, I’d talked to some people about trying to see if we could put a fund-raiser on. Nobody was—they said we aren’t giving money to the governor. And I said, ‘OK, you know, I can’t tell them what to do with their money.’”

“So when the (governor’s) brother called me back, I said, ‘Well, look Rob…I can’t raise any money from my friends. I said, maybe my partner and I, you can talk this over and see, could we go to some other people that we might be able to talk to that would help us out if we give–because we give a fundraiser in the law office, nobody going to show up. We’ll probably have a thousand dollars for you or something to that effect.’

Burris said prior to his final conversation with Robert Blagojevich in November he came to the conclusion that because of his interest in the Senate seat, he couldn’t raise money for the governor.

“I said, ‘No. 1, I can’t raise any money for you and I can’t give you any money because I don’t want to have a conflict,” Burris said he told Rob Blagojevich.

The obvious point there seems to be that, at least so far, there is no evidence against Burris nor admission by him of him actually raising cash as opposed to attempting to do so. He will use this as a basis for arguing that there was no quid pro quo. Quite frankly, that is a fair argument – so far. The other thing is that, in relation to his testimony in front of the Illinois Legislature in January, Burris will say that when he testified "I talked to some friends" he was admitting to talking to the people Jim Durkin was inquiring about and just forgot to specify further, and it was an oversight. Do I believe that? No. Could I sandpaper him up and put him on the witness stand in a perjury trial and argue it up with a closing statement to sell it to a jury? You bet.

There is one other factor that muddies the waters, Mike Ettinger, Robert Blagojevich’s lawyer (and in what has to be a conflict at this point, Rod Blagojevich’s attorney of record in the criminal case), is now spreading a slightly different version:

Ettinger said Robert Blagojevich did not know about Burris’ interest in the Senate seat until the lasts of the three calls, which occurred in November after the election.

Ettinger said Robert did reach out to Burris in October, but to ask him to host a fundraiser, not to make a personal contribution. No specific amount was discussed, Ettinger said.

Ettinger has said he understands Burris contends he had told five people about his interest in the seat during the fall time frame.

"That may be, but my client wasn’t one of them," Ettinger said.

The lawyer said his client spoke with Burris in November while on the phone at the Blagojevich campaign office, which leads him to believe that call was recorded by federal agents, who had tapped the campaign headquarters’ phones.

During that conversation, Robert Blagojevich learned of Burris’ interest in the seat for the first time, and no fundraising effort with Burris went forward, Ettinger said.

The real problem, per the age old maxim, is that it isn’t the underlying act in politics, it is the lying and coverup. Burris may never get convicted of perjury, at least if the facts don’t materially change (Ha!), but he has already bought the farm on credibility. It will be interesting to see if Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and the Senate try to expel him. One thing is for certain, there are already behind the scenes chats with Burris trying to get him to resign. He has been awfully cocky and persistent so far, but we shall see.

UPDATE: Burris says he is game for any investigation:

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris said today he is open to a Senate ethics investigation into how he got the Senate seat from ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich and that he has reached out to a Sangamon County prosecutor who is reviewing Burris’ sworn testimony before Illinois lawmakers.

Burris made a brief statement to reporters in Peoria today, saying an aide had reached out to Sangamon County State’s Atty. John Schmidt, who is reviewing testimony Burris gave last month to House lawmakers in Springfield about his contacts with allies of the ousted governor.

"I have made an effort to be as transparent as I can," Burris said. "I have nothing to hide."

Burris said, "I welcome the opportunity to go before any and all investigative bodies…to answer questions they have."

"There was never any inappropriate (contact) between me and anyone else," Burris said. "And I will answer any and all questions to get that point across and keep my faith with the people of Illinois."

When it was announced Sunday that President Obama had decided against appointing an "Auto Czar", instead opting for a panel of Administration financial experts including, but not limited to, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers and Ron Bloom, it pretty much signaled that the Administration was going to continue to work with GM as an existing, functioning entity instead of forcing them into bankruptcy.

Monday night, that was borne out. From Reuters:

The U.S. government will release $4 billion in additional aid to General Motors Corp (GM.N) on Tuesday as planned, a White House aide said on Monday, ahead of the deadline for the automaker to submit a new survival plan.

The aide said GM’s smaller rival Chrysler LLC’s request for additional aid would be treated as a new request and dealt with separately.

GM is seeking concessions from the United Auto Workers union and creditors under the terms of its $13.4 billion federal bailout. It must submit a restructuring plan to U.S. officials on Tuesday showing how it can cut costs and pay back the loans.

Now that does not mean that the moment is over for GM, far from it. The company still has ongoing crucial negotiations with the auto workers union (UAW) that must be completed, and must formally submit its grand restructuring plan. The plan will not be fully known until officially submitted and made public, which is likely not to occur until the markets close tomorrow, but early details reveal a framework for a radically different General Motors in the future:

G.M. will file what is expected to be the largest restructuring plan of its 100-year history on Tuesday, a step it must take to justify its use of a $13.4 billion loan package from the federal government.

The plan will outline in considerable detail, over as many as 900 pages, how G.M. will further cut its work force, shutter more factories in North America and reduce its lineup of brands to just four, from eight, according to executives knowledgeable about its contents. The remaining core brands will be Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC and Buick.
…
The plan will also probably include revisions in executive compensation and targets for cutting dealers and brands like Saturn and Pontiac.

Similar discussions are underway with Chrysler, which also has a deadline tomorrow to submit its restructuring plan; details of the plan or government commitment are not yet forthcoming.

h/t Zapiro @ sahistory

Joe Conason has a new piece out in Salon that is enough to cause sane heads to explode. Noting that, like math, bringing accountability is hard, Conason biliously opines:

Here we have no such consensus and no revolutionary government with the power to mete out retribution to vanquished foes. What we have instead are the unrepentant officials of the Bush era, who continue to justify their misconduct as critical to the nation’s survival. We have a new administration, immured in a world economic crisis, that recognizes conflicting imperatives of accountability and cooperation. And we have a responsibility to explore how the nation embarked on "a dangerous and disastrous diversion from American values," as Leahy put it.

Is there a way for President Obama to pursue that responsibility without inflicting vengeance or humiliation? Perhaps he ought to consider the creation of a presidential commission whose aims would be purely investigative — and encourage the participation of those implicated in the abuses of the past by promising a complete pardon to anyone who testifies fully, honestly and publicly.

With that gesture, he would acknowledge the importance of uncovering the facts, no matter how ugly, while magnanimously binding up the nation’s wounds. He could leave the issue of criminal prosecution to international authorities that can act without any partisan taint. And he could seek truth without vengeance.

Conason waxes romantic about Sen. Pat Leahy’s much ballyhooed truth and reconciliation plan. Here is the money quote from Leahy:

We could develop and authorize a person or group of people universally recognized as fair-minded, and without axes to grind. Their straightforward mission would be to find the truth. People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts.

That’s right, another blue ribbon commission that is going to solve our difficult problems of governance. Yeah, that is going to work out well because, you know, such things always do. Paging Lee Hamilton to the blue ribbon phone. The problem with Leahy and Conason’s commission is that there exists a body of law, both statutory and common, for a reason; for it to be the rule and for the rule to be enforced. Conason wants to be "magnanimous" and "pardon" and "leave the issue of criminal prosecution to international authorities that can act without any partisan taint". What a totally perfect bunch of tripe. Hey Joe, exactly what "international authorities" are you referring to here? And how are these "miscreant" defendants going to be rendered to justice by said international authorities? Is Conason saying he supports extradition of Americans to the Hague or other loci of international justice? Because if he isn’t (and trust me, his shallow babble doesn’t) then this chatter about international justice for the malfeasants is horribly idle.

Oh, and one more thing, when Conason notes that he and Leahy’s claimed brilliance is founded upon

using a process modeled partly on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of post-apartheid South Africa

it ought also be noted that not quite everybody considers that process to be all that wonderful, even in the tectonic change scenario where it is supposedly appropriate. From yesterday’s Washington Post:

But the ruling also stirred debate about how to deal with history in a young democracy that depicts itself as a miracle built on the notion of forgiveness. In a country where many blacks remain poor and many white perpetrators walk free, it is a question on which even the widows of the Cradock Four do not agree: What is best for reconciliation — digging up the past or letting it lie?

"We have had trickle-down reconciliation in this country," said Piers Pigou, a former Truth and Reconciliation Commission investigator who now directs the South African History Archive. "There’s been an absence of commitment to those issues because it’s likely to raise a lot of hard questions."

The main protagonists of the Bush/Cheney regime effectively reverse engineered our laws and Constitution in order to gut them of all meaning and effect, so that they could impose their demented whims of dominance and submission on the nation and the world. Their crimes are more than the violence of man on man that hold forth in truth and reconciliation commissions; the crimes of Bush and Cheney rip at the very heart of who and what we are, and were founded to be, as a Constitutiional democracy.

The half baked blue ribbon commission of Conason and Leahy will not address the heart of what has gone on, and it will never bring valid accountability for it. Good governance and the maintenance of the rule of law is hard, especially when truth must be spoken to power. Difficulty is no excuse for failure.

Here it is, another glorious President’s day, and wouldn’t you know it world leaders are exchanging presents. And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has sent one President Obama’s way:

President Hugo Chávez handily won a referendum on Sunday that will end presidential term limits, allowing him to run for re-election indefinitely and injecting fresh vibrancy into his socialist-inspired revolution.

The results, coming after voters had rejected a similar effort by Mr. Chávez just 15 months ago, pointed to his resilience after a decade in power, as well as to the fragmentation of his opposition, which as recently as November had won key mayoralties and governorships.

The vote opens the way not only for Mr. Chávez to run for a new six-year term when his current one expires in 2013, but could also bolster his ambitious agenda as an icon of the left and a counterweight to American policies in Latin America.

It also creates a new foreign policy challenge for the Obama administration, strengthening a leader who has made a career of taunting and deriding the United States, even though Mr. Chávez just this weekend seemed to open the door for a different relationship.

Chavez is not going away anytime soon, and with the petro status of Venezuela remaining significant, both as to the US and as a vehicle for Chavez to spread influence in Latin America, Barack Obama needs to fashion a coherent policy for Latin America as a whole and Venezuela in particular. President Obama has shown a refreshing tendency in foreign policy to address glaring problems head on and, unlike the previous Bush Administration, actually use intelligence instead of muscle.

A heavy fist and a thumbed nose was about all the subtlety George Bush showed in his Latin American foreign policy; it is time for that to change. With the decline and fall of Fidel Castro in Cuba, and brother Raul being both slightly more progressive and not long for office himself, coupled with Chavez’s newfound extended lease on power and inability to know what to do the Obama agency of change, it is time for a new direction on both. We don’t need to all be best friends, but we need to quit being intransigent enemies for the sake of nothing more than needing to make each other a villain to play off of. President Obama can stop the stupid; he should.

In this post, I’m going to make a wildarsed guess at what actually went down with Burris’ campaign to be Senator. See the timeline of known interactions below.

The key to understanding what really happened in Burris’ campaign to be Senator is a discrepancy between what RobBlago is saying and what Burris is saying. In a statement to the Sun-Times, RobBlago’s lawyer  Michael Ettinger claimed that RobBlago didn’t know about Burris’ interest in the Senate seat when he made three fund-raising calls to Burris.

"He didn’t know he was in the running for the U.S. Senate seat," Michael Ettinger said.

But Burris had already expressed his interest in running to at least three people (John Wyma and Doug Scofield at a June fundraiser, and Lon Monk in July and/or September) by the time RobBlago first called. And Burris said that the Senate seat came up during at least two of their calls. In fact, Burris says that when RobBlago first called in October, RobBlago clearly stated that he knew Burris was in consideration for the seat.

I asked Rob Blagojevich what was going on with the selection of a successor if  then-Senator Obama were elected President, and he said he had heard by name mentioned in the discussions.

So here’s what I think happened (and this is all a wildarsed guess).

Burris told all the Blago people he had ties with of his interest in the seat. By early October, RobBlago was already trying to fund-raise off candidates for the seat. He called Burris and specifically in the context of the Senate seat asked him to do a fund-raiser for Blago (note, this would almost certainly have taken place before Fitz bugged Blago’s office, so there’s almost certainly no tape of this conversation). Burris deferred until after the election, perhaps because he wanted to make sure of two things: that Obama got elected and that he was under serious consideration before he went to the trouble of having a fundraiser. It is fairly clear that Burris was playing Blago’s game at this point, because he was already a known candidate for Obama’s seat–doing a fundraiser in October would be perceived as just as much an "attempt to curry favor" from Blago as would a fundraiser after the election!! But rather than saying no, Burris said, talk to me after the election.

After the election, John Harris (who was one of the first people taped after the election pushing Blago to get money for the seat) called Burris to touch base on the Senate seat; Harris remained non-committal about the seat, perhaps to suggest to Burris that unless he started fundraising he wouldn’t even be in the running. After which RobBlago called (as if on cue) and pushed Burris to do a fund-raiser again.

Now this second post-November call is where it gets interesting. Because it sure seems like Burris and RobBlago were talking about ways that Burris could fundraise without it looking like a clear quid pro quo.  At least one of these meetings took place at the campaign headquarters–which was bugged. But when it first came out that Fitz had tapped Blago, he seemed to assume that Wyma and others were wired, not that they had bugged his office. So I wonder whether they thought they were being safe by meeting face to face.

So RobBlago asks Burris for money. And Burris responds that he could not hold a fundraiser because it "could be viewed as an attempt to curry favor with [Blago] regarding his decision to appoint a successor to President Obama." In response, RobBlago suggested having others donate–that is, rather than Burris donating himself or having a fundraiser, he should do some kind of bundling. (Recall, by the way, Jesse Jackson Jr’s denials of paying for the seat–he said no one did it on his orders, and he didn’t know about it, but he never denied that someone had held a fundraiser on his behalf; this appears to be a parallel structure of plausible deniability as Burris and RobBlago seem to have discussed.)

I’m totally agnostic on whether or not someone did fundraise for Burris. But it’s worth noting that Burris’ partner, Fred Lebed, was on the board of the charity that, until recently, employed Patti Blagojevich, and when asked about Lebed’s ties to Blago, Burris claimed he knew nothing about it nor was involved. And Lebed has been involved in Burris’ prior campaigns. 

In any case, after getting busted for trying to sell the seat, and after Ed Genson assured everyone that Blago wouldn’t appoint anyone to the seat, Blago’s not defense lawyer Sam Adam Jr. approached Burris about the seat in two face-to-face meetings at Burris’ house–two conversations that (particularly since Adam was a long-time associate of Burris’) would probably escape the direct notice of the FBI. Only after those two conversations did Blago call, in a conversation that was surely taped, and offer Burris the seat.

Burris spent the next several weeks denying he had any untoward ties with Blago’s people. In his sworn testimony before the IL legislature, Burris dodged questions regarding:

• Whether he had spoken with RobBlago, John Harris, John Wyma, and Doug Scofield
• Whether he would have reported a quid pro quo offer to the Feds
• Whether he had bundled donations for Blago

And only after he was sworn in as Senator did he reveal what Fitz surely knew–that Blago’s people had made a quid pro quo offer. 

What Burris hasn’t admitted–but which the evidence suggests–is that Burris and RobBlago were trying to find a way for Burris to fundraise for Blago without leaving any tracks.

Here’s the timeline:

June 27, 2008: At a $1000 fundraiser for Blago, Burris told both Doug Scofield and John Wyma that he was interested in Obama’s Senate seat.

July (maybe–Burris was unclear whether this was July or September): Burris asks Lon Monk to tell Blago he is interested in Obama’s seat.

September (maybe–Burris was unclear whether this was July or September): Burris asks Lon Monk to tell Blago he is interested in Obama’s seat. There may have been a conversation about whether Blago would think Burris were qualified.

Early October: RobBlago calls Burris to ask him to hold a fund-raiser. Burris asks RobBlago "what was going on with the selection of a successor" for Obama’s seat. RobBlago responds that Burris’ name has come up in those discussions. Burris says he won’t give money now, but will wait until after the election.

October: Burris leaves a voice mail for John Harris, ostensibly to pitch his nephew for a job with the State. 

November (probably post-election–Burris describes it as "approximately three weeks" after he left his email): Harris calls Burris. Burris pitches his nephew for the state job. Then, Burris asks "whether there was any news" about the Senate seat. Harris says there is no news.

November, post-election: RobBlago makes two calls to Burris. RobBlago now says he did not know that Burris wanted the Senate seat, presumably to be able to claim there was no quid pro quo. But given the repeated calls, the subtext was clear. It appears possible that Burris and RobBlago talked about how to fundraise in such a way that the fundraising was not tied directly to Burris.

December 26: Conversation with Sam Adam Jr., Blago’s maybe Defense Attorney, about appointment

December 28: Conversation with Adam, then Blago, accepting seat

January 5: Roland signs affidavit that does not address contacts with Blago’s people, beyond the appointment discussions on December 26 and 28. In it he states:

Prior to the December 26, 2008 telephone call from Mr. Adams Jr., there was not any contact between myself or any of my representatives with Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives regarding my appointment to the United States Senate.

January 8: In State Legislative hearing, Burris admits to contacts with Lon Monk, but does not mention contacts with four other Blago representatives

January 15: Burris sworn in as Senator

February 5: Burris writes a new affidavit, revealing additional conversations

Here’s a prediction of where the new Burris controversy is going: I suspect we’ll find out, in coming days, that while Burris did not donate directly to Blago, he never refused to bundle donations for Blago. I don’t know whether Burris actually did bundle donations, but I suspect we’ll learn that Burris has never refused to do so.

As Sun-Times reports, there is some debate over whether, as part of his discussions with Rob Blagojevich after the election, of fund-raising from others for Blago.

In October and again in November, Burris spoke with Robert Blagojevich, who initially asked him to host a fund-raiser. Burris said he’d get back to him after the election, sources with knowledge of the conversations said. The two later talked again, and Burris again was asked for campaign cash.

Burris said he refused to contribute and "made it unequivocally clear … that it would be inappropriate and pose a major conflict because I was interested in the Senate vacancy."

A source with knowledge of the exchange said there was some discussion about Burris possibly getting others to give or raise money on his behalf. Not so, according to Burris: "I did not donate or help raise a single dollar for the governor from those conversations and would never consider making a donation through a third party."

Note the form of Burris’ denial. In response to an assertion that there was "some discussion about Burris possibly getting others to give or raise money on his behalf," Burris (in what appears to be an unsworn statement to the newspaper) responds, "I did not … help raise a single dollar for the governor … and would never consider making a donation through a third party." I’m not sure what the "did not … help raise a single dollar" would include (would it include telling his partner–who was on the board of the charity at which Blago’s wife worked–to go raise money, but then not getting involved in the actual fundraising?), but Burris then says he would not make a donation through a third party, which is slightly different than having others give on your behalf.

The Trib provides more details, quoting Rob Blagojevich’s lawyer saying there was such a discussion.

"I was asked to raise money by the governor’s brother and made it unequivocally clear to him that it would be inappropriate and pose a major conflict because I was interested in the Senate vacancy," Burris said in the statement. "I did not donate or help raise a single dollar for the governor from those conversations and would never consider making a donation through a third party."

Robert Blagojevich’s attorney, Michael Ettinger, said his client did ask Burris to help with fundraising but not to donate personally and that after Burris expressed his interest in the Senate seat no fundraiser was held.

Ettinger also said he presumes at least one of the two post-election calls between Burris and Robert Blagojevich was recorded by federal agents investigating the former governor, but that it will show no wrongdoing on his client’s behalf.

Ettinger admits that Rob Blagojevich asked Burris to "help with fundraising," but denies that a fundraiser itself was held.

Now look at how the statement Burris gave to the Sun-Times and Trib differs from his sworn affidavit:

 In one of the other conversations [after the election] (I believe the last one), I mentioned the Senate seat in the context of saying that I could not contribute to Governor Blagojevich because it could be viewed as an attempt to curry favor with him regarding his decision to appoint a successor to President Obama. I did not raise or donate any funds to Governor Blagojevich after the fundraiser on June 27, 2008.

In what appears to be an unsworn statement, Burris says he did not "help raise" funds, whereas in his sworn affidavit, Burris says he did not "raise" funds. The latter would seem to involve Burris making calls himself, the former is more nebulous.

Now look at the exchange starting at 3:09 in the YouTube.

Durkin: Did you bundle any money for the Governor’s campaign fund at any time in the last six months, from July 2008 until present?

(Burris’ lawyer, Timothy Wright, grabs the mike.)

Wright: I’m sorry, Mr. Representative, you say, "bundle," what do you mean by "bundle"?

Durkin: Collected money.

Wright: Oh, like giving a fundraiser, is that what you’re speakng of?

Durkin: Sure, I’d like to know that, I’d also like to know if Mr. Burris directed anybody to make contributions to the Governor since July of this year.

Wright: (tries to interrupt before Durkin finishes) Thanks.

Burris: The answer’s no.

Now, presumably Burris’ "no" would apply to both parts of Durkin’s question: Did Burris hold a fundraiser or direct others to make contributions. But I think Wright’s interjection (including his attempt to close off Durkin’s clarification after he says "fundraiser") looks suspiciously like an attempt to redefine "bundle." After all, what politician doesn’t know what "bundle" means? And it certainly looks like an attempt to blur the meaning of "collected money."

I’m guessing there’s a reason that Burris is being so weasely with his definition of fundraiser.

Check out this video of Roland Burris’ testimony before the IL Legislative Committee. Here’s the transcript, on the interactions between Burris and his lawyer.

Rep. Jim Durkin: Prior to his arrest, did you have any conversations with the governor about your desire to be appointed to the seat?

Roland Burris: No.

Durkin: OK. Did you talk to any members of the governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including with family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including oh, let me throw out some names: John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenlee, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody who was associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor’s arrest?

Burris (confers with his attorney off-mic and says): I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.

Durkin: I guess the point is I was trying to ask: Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor’s staff prior to the governor’s arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who was closely related to the governor?

Burris (again confers with attorney and says): I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business and I did bring it up, it must have been in September-maybe it was in July of ’08 and you know, ‘If your close to the governor, well let him know that I will feel certainly interested in the seat.’"

Durkin: OK.

Durkin lists off a list that includes all five people whom Burris has now admitted speaking to about the seat and other issues. Burris’ lawyer seems to know immediately that Burris is going to need help with the question and asks for a moment to confer. Burris gives his attorney a short explanation, the attorney responds with one word (seemingly telling him he has to reveal it), and the elaborates that advice. Burris then gives his weasely answer, "I talked to some friends." Durkin tries again and asks what was in effect a simple yes or no question about whether Burris had talked to anyone on the Governor’s staff or "was closely related" to the Governor.

Rather than saying yes, or starting with those closest to the Governor (his brother), Burris launches into a vague answer about Lon Monk.

And he never gets around to revealing that conversation in which Rob Blagojevich discussed fundraising in the context of the Senate appointment. And here–from later in the transcript–is Burris trying to avoid answering whether or not he would have turned the Blagos in if they asked for a clear quid pro quo.

Durkin: At any time were you directly or indirectly aware of a quid pro quo with the governor for the appointment of this vacant Senate seat?

Burris: No sir.

Durkin: Ok. If you were aware of a quid pro quo, what would you have done?

(Burris’s lawyer calls it a hypothetical question and inappropriate. Durkin calls it "highly relevant" and what his response would have been. Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago) says his response to something that did not occur was "irrelevant" and "speculative." Durkin says its "germane" to the hearing and a "reasonable request" of what he would have done. Burris’ lawyer says Burris will respond because he wants to be "clear and open.")

Burris: Rep. Durkin, knowing my ethics, I would not participate in anybody’s quid pro quo. I’ve been in government for 20 years and never participated in anybody’s quid pro quo.

Durkin: I guess the point is, would you have gone to the federal authorities if you were aware of that?

Burris: I have no response to that.

Let me answer this for you, Representative Durkin: No. Burris would assuredly not go to the Feds if he were offered a quid pro quo.

Obviously, I’m not a juror or a court of law, but I’d say the evidence suggests Burris operated with clear intent in hiding both his conversation with Rob Blagojevich and the quid pro quo conversation they had.

The Sun-Times reports today that Roland Burris was not very forthcoming when he told the State House what contacts he had had with Rod Blagojevich’s camp.

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s brother solicited U.S. Sen. Roland Burris for up to $10,000 in campaign cash before Blagojevich named Burris to the coveted post — something Burris initially failed to disclose under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel, records and interviews show.

Burris acknowledges being hit up for the money in a new affidavit he has sent to the head of the House committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

[snip]

The affidavit is dated Feb. 5 — three weeks after Burris was sworn in to replace President Obama in the Senate.

Burris — who did not give money to the Blagojevich campaign fund in response to the previously undisclosed solicitation — provided a copy of the sworn statement to the Chicago Sun-Times Friday in response to questions about his contacts with the Blagojevich camp about fund-raising.

Burris acknowledged having three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, who headed the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund — and one of those was likely recorded by the FBI.

[snip]

In his new affidavit, Burris confirms he also spoke of his interest in the Senate appointment with Blagojevich insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma.

The discussions with Robert Blagojevich about money came after Burris spoke with those people. 

So best as I can reconstruct, here are the contacts Burris had with Blago’s folks:

July or September: Discussions with Lon Monk about picking up lobbying business to the Governor

Unknown: Conversations with John Harris, Doug Scofield, and John Wyma about seat

October: Conversation with Robert Blagojevich tying money to seat

November: Conversation with Robert Blagojevich tying money to seat

December 26: Conversation with Sam Adam Jr., Blago’s maybe Defense Attorney, about appointment

December 28: Conversation with Adam, then Blago, accepting seat

January 5: Roland signs affidavit that does not address contacts with Blago’s people, beyond the appointment discussions on December 26 and 28

January 8: In State Legislative hearing, Burris admits to contacts with Lon Monk, but does not mention contacts with four other Blago representatives

January 15: Burris sworn in as Senator

February 5: Burris writes a new affidavit, revealing additional conversations

One of the key details is the genesis of the new affidavit. Burris says he sent it after realizing he wasn’t forthcoming to the hearing.

Burris acknowledges being hit up for the money in a new affidavit he has sent to the head of the House committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

[snip]

Burris said he sent the new statement to House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) after he read the transcript of his testimony before the impeachment committee she headed and realized it was incomplete. "There were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony," Burris said. "I voluntarily submitted an affidavit so everything was transparent."

Uh, right, Burris. But you didn’t review the transcript until after you had been sworn into the Senate?

I’m wondering, too, whether in the interim Burris didn’t have a visit with Patrick Fitzgerald’s folks about what got caught on the FBI’s tapes?