The Blago indictment describes a previously unreported failed extortion attempt of Congressman A. Congressman A seems to be Rahm Emanuel. If that’s true, then it means Rahm will be dragged into the trial (and discovery) of this case. But it also shows that he resisted Blago’s advances even before it became clear Blago was under suspicion for corruption.

Extorting Congressman A

The indictment describes this extortion attempt in 2006.

22. It was further part of the scheme that in or about 2006, after United States Congressman A inquired about the status of a $2 million grant for the benefit of a publicly-supported school, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed defendant HARRIS not to release the grant until further direction from ROD BLAGOJEVICH, even though ROD BLAGOJEVICH previously had agreed to support the grant and funding for the grant had been included in the state’s budget.

23. It was further part of the scheme that, in response to inquiries by a high-ranking state official as to whether the grant money could be released, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH informed the official that ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted it communicated to United States Congressman A that United States Congressman A’s brother needed to have a fundraiser for ROD BLAGOJEVICH.

24. It was further part of the scheme that defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Lobbyist A that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was giving a $2 million grant to a school in United States Congressman A’s district and instructed Lobbyist A to approach United States Congressman A for a fundraiser.

25. It was further part of the scheme that after defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH learned from defendant HARRIS that the school had started to incur expenses that were to be paid with the grant funds, ROD BLAGOJEVICH initially resisted the release of the grant money, and then ultimately agreed to the release of certain of the grant funds to cover incurred expenses, but only on a delayed basis, even though no fundraiser had been held.

Note, it’s clear from the last paragraph that Congressman A did not hold a fundraiser for Blago, and that at least some funds were provided to the school in any case. So Congressman A definitely blew off Blago’s attempt at extortion.

Jesse Jackson Jr is Senate Candidate A

Congressman A does not appear to be Jesse Jackson Jr, another of the male Congressmen who got pitched during the Senate sale this year.  We know JJJ had worked with Fitzgerald to expose two earlier attempted corruption schemes from Blago–a $25,000 scheme involving JJJ"s wife, and an attempt to open a third airport in Peotone, IL. But if JJJ had been a target of this third extortion attempt, why wouldn’t it have come out earlier when he revealed the earlier contacts?

Also, JJJ is mentioned elsewhere as Senate Candidate A.

It was further part of the scheme that on or about December 4, 2008, defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed defendant ROBERT BLAGOJEVICH to contact a representative of Senate Candidate A, and advise the representative that if Senate Candidate A was going to be chosen to fill the Senate seat, some of the promised fundraising had to occur before the appointment.

It’s unlikely they would refer to  JJJ as both Senate Candidate A and Congressman A.

Congressman A matches details on Rahm in the complaint

In addition to the attempted extortion in 2006, Congressman A is also described in context of the attempt to sell the Senate seat last year, specifically in regards to a demand to set up a 401(c)4 in exchange for the appointment of a Senate candidate.

On or about November 13, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor B in Michigan (Session 624), in which they discussed presenting to United States Congressman A a proposal by ROD BLAGOJEVICH that a not-for-profit organization be set up and that the connection between setting up this organization and the awarding of the U.S. Senate seat would be "unsaid”;

[snip]

On or about November 13, 2008, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere,

ROD BLAGOJEVICH,

defendant herein, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme, did knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication
in interstate commerce signals and sounds, namely a phone call between ROD BLAGOJEVICH in Chicago, Illinois, and Advisor B in Michigan (Session 627), in which ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Advisor B to call Lobbyist A and ask Lobbyist A to present to United States Congressman A ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s proposal that a not-for-profit organization be set up and that, while it would be unsaid, this would be a "play” to obtain a benefit for ROD BLAGOJEVICH in return for the awarding of the United States Senate seat; [my emphasis]

Note, neither of these passages say the Senate appointment would go to Congressman A (which would make it more likely it was one of the other Congressmen, like Danny Davis, who were in the running for the seat). 

While the described events are slightly different, the complaint describes the following discussions about pitching a non-profit in the context of Blago’s larger pitch to Obama, and then a specific conversation (indirectly, through John Wyma) to Rahm.

ROD BLAGOJEVICH raised the issue of the 501(c)(4) organization and that contributors and others can put “10 to 15 million in it so I can advocate health care and other issues I care about and help them, while I stay as Governor, she’s (believed to be Senate Candidate 1) a Senator.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH noted that the President-elect can ask Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and others for money for the organization. ROD BLAGOJEVICH states he will ask “[Senate Candidate 6]” to help fund it as well. HARRIS said that funding the 501(c)(4) would be a lot easier for the President-elect than appointing ROD BLAGOJEVICH to a position. ROD
BLAGOJEVICH said, “They could say ‘hey, we get [Senate Candidate 1]. Let’s help this guy have a 501(c)(4) issue advocacy organization. Let’s fund it to the level that he’s asked for and then we’ll get [Senate Candidate 1].’” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that he will control the 501(c)(4) organization through a board of directors while he is Governor, and then a position in the 501(c)(4) would be waiting for him when he was no longer Governor.

[snip]

On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with one of his Washington D.C.-based advisors. ROD BLAGOJEVICH explained the 501(c)(4) organization idea to the advisor, and that “[the President-elect] gets these Warren Buffett types to [fund it].” The advisor asked ROD BLAGOJEVICH if the 501(c)(4) is a real effort or just a vehicle to help ROD BLAGOJEVICH. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that it is a real effort but also a place for ROD BLAGOJEVICH to go when he is no longer Governor.

[snip]

Later on November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with Advisor A. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Advisor A to call Individual A and have Individual A pitch the idea of the 501(c)(4) to “[President-elect Advisor].” Advisor A said that, “while it’s not said this is a play to put in play other things.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH responded, “correct.” Advisor A asked if this is “because we think there’s still some life in [Senate Candidate 1] potentially?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said, “not so much her, but possibly her. But others.” [my emphasis]

The conversation on November 13 appears to be the same conversation, though Advisor A from the complaint is named Advisor B in the indictment, and Individual A named Lobbyist A. Nevertheless, the key details–a November 13 call to an advisor to have a lobbyist pitch the non-profit to an Obama associate–are the same. The role of Lobbyist A in the Children’s Hospital scheme in the indictment–to which Wyma, Individual A in the complaint, was central–supports this argument.

Rahm refused Blago’s extortion

So why should we care? After all, if Rahm is, in fact, Congressman A, then it would mean he had totally refused Blago’s extortion attempt in 2006.

First, it would mean that Rahm would be dragged into the trial and–more importantly–discovery process of this trial. Blago at least tried to have conversations with Rahm about his House seat, he has already tried to blame Rahm for one of the charges in his impeachment, so Blago would be sure to try to embarrass Rahm going forward. 

But it would also demonstrate that Rahm–at a time when it was much less clear that Blago was under investigation (and probably before John Wyma was cooperating)–blew off Blago’s attempt at extortion.

Big surprise … not. Rod Blagojevich indicted for corruption, including trying to sell the Senate seat.

Here is the indictment.

In addition to Blago and Harris (who were arrested in December), RobBlago, Lon Monk, Christopher Kelly, and William Cellini were indicted. I’m looking for the document now, will update later. 

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, his brother Rob and Christopher Kelly, a former top fundraiser for Blagojevich, were all indicted today on corruption charges, the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago announced.

Also charged in the indictment were Lon Monk, a lobbyist and former Blagojevich chief of staff; John Harris, also a former chief of staff to Blagojevich; and William Cellini, a Springfield insider for decades.

From the press release:

Since 2002, even before he was first elected governor that November, and continuing until he was arrested on Dec. 9, 2008, former Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and a circle of his closest aides and advisors allegedly engaged in a wide-ranging scheme to deprive the people of Illinois of honest government, according to a 19-count indictment returned today by a federal grand jury. Blagojevich, 52, of Chicago, was charged with 16 felony counts, including racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion conspiracy, attempted extortion and making false statements to federal agents. He allegedly used his office in numerous matters involving state appointments, business, legislation and pension fund investments to seek or obtain such financial benefits as money, campaign contributions, and employment for himself and others, in exchange for official actions, including trying to leverage his authority to appoint a United States Senator, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

Also charged as co-defendants in the same indictment are:

John Harris, 47, of Chicago, Blagojevich’s chief of staff from late 2005 until last December after he was arrested along with Blagojevich. Through his attorney, Harris, disclose that he has agreed to cooperate with the United States Attorney’s Office in the prosecution of this case;

Alonzo Monk, 50, of Park Ridge, a lobbyist doing business as AM3 Consulting, Ltd., and a long-time Blagojevich associate who served as his general counsel when Blagojevich represented Illinois’ Fifth Congressional District, and later managed his 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial campaigns, was his first gubernatorial chief of staff from 2003 through 2005, and later chairman of his campaign fund;

Robert Blagojevich, 53, of Nashville, Tenn., Blagojevich’s brother, who became chairman of his campaign fund in August 2008;

Christopher Kelly, 50, of Burr Ridge, a businessman and a principal campaign fundraiser who also served as chairman of Blagojevich’s campaign fund from early 2004 until August 2005. The indictment alleges that with Blagojevich’s knowledge and permission, Kelly at times exercised substantial influence over certain activities of the governor’s office; and

William F. Cellini, Sr., 74, of Springfield, a businessman who also raised significant funds for Blagojevich, in part through his role as the executive director of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association. Cellini had longstanding relationships and influence with trustees and staff members of the Teachers Retirement System of Illinois (TRS), and he was associated with Commonwealth Realty Advisors, a real estate asset management firm that invested hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of TRS, the indictment alleges.

Hank Greenberg will testify before the House Oversight Committee about the AIG collapse today at 10 AM.

I’m uncertain that it’ll be useful in unpacking what happened with AIG at all. If Greenberg’s planned testimony from last fall is any indication (he called in sick for an October 7 AIG hearing, but had already submitted his testimony), he will say that the CDS before he left were hedged properly, not in subprime mortgages, and watched closely by management (that is, by him); but all that changed after he was forced out.  

AIG’s strategy, accordingly, was to look for opportunities in businesses that benefitted from its AAA rating, strong capital base, risk management skills, as well as the intellectual capital needed to manage such diversification.

That led to the creation of AIGFP in 1987. At that time, the derivative market was small and growing. From the beginning, AIG’s policy was that AIGFP conduct its business on a "hedged" basis – that is, its net profit should stem from the differences between the profit earned from the client and the cost of offsetting or hedging the risk in the market. AIGFP would therefore not be exposed to directional changes in the fixed income, foreign exchange or equity markets.

AIGFP, at that time, reported directly to me and Ed Matthews, Senior Vice Chairman, and later to William Dooley, Senior Vice President, supported by AIG’s credit risk and market risk departments. When I was AIG’s CEO, AIG management closely monitored AIGFP and its risk portfolio. AIGFP was subject to numerous internal risk controls, including credit risk monitoring by several independent units of AIG, review of AIGFP transactions by outside auditors and consultants, and scrutiny by AIGFP’s and AIG’s Boards of Directors. Every new type of transaction or any transaction of size, including most credit default swaps, had to pass review by AIG’s Chief Credit Officer.

[snip]

AIGFP reportedly wrote as many credit default swaps on collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, in the nine months following my departure as it had written in the entire previous seven years combined.

Moreover, unlike what had been true during my tenure, the majority of the credit default swaps that AIGFP wrote in the nine months after I retired were reportedly exposed to sub-prime mortgages. By contrast, only a handful of the credit default swaps written over the entire prior seven years had any sub-prime exposure at all.

What I am interested in the hearing for is the squabble it has elicited both between Greengerg and AIG, and between Ed Towns (the Chair of the Committee) and Ranking member Darrell Issa.

AIG has already released a statement rebutting some of Greenberg’s claims–notably about whether or not the CDS were hedged properly before he left.

In a statement, AIG said that when Mr. Greenberg left in March 2005, the unit had already sold about half of the swaps that caused the biggest problems. AIG added that AIG’s exposure under the contracts wasn’t hedged.

To which Greenberg seems to backing off his earlier statement that everything was hedged properly.

Mr. Greenberg said the amount of exposure AIG faced under the contracts when he left was beside the point. When AIG lost its triple-A credit rating, which came after his departure as CEO, he would have hedged the exposure and tried to modify the collateral requirements, he said in the interview.

Which has led Darrell Issa to try to get Towns to cancel the hearing–or challenge Greenberg’s statement ahead of time.

The committee’s ranking minority member, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), urged Rep. Towns in a letter late Wednesday to "reconsider" allowing Mr. Greenberg to testify, "or at the very least, join me in publicly acknowledging the veracity of his testimony is questionable."

Though Issa may be just as anxious to prevent Towns’ questions about why AIG got multiple deferred prosecution agreements rather than real criminal investigations.

In November 2004, the Bush Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed not to prosecute AIG for allegedly helping companies fudge their books. In exchange, AIG agreed to host a government-appointed auditor in company meetings. At the time, Greenberg said it brought "finality to the claims raised by the SEC and the Department of Justice."

Towns said that Greenberg should be able to identify Bush administration officials involved in the decision-making around the settlement. Towns added the committee wants to know what Bush administration regulators knew about AIG’s credit default swaps and other highly risky positions that brought the company down.

Asked if he would be directly pursuing Bush administration officials, Towns said: "No doubt about it. That’s the reason I want to talk to Greenberg first. He might even point some folks out. That’s of great interest to us."

I always get kind of woozy when I sort of agree with Issa. But it sure seems like Greenberg plans to use his appearance today to pitch schemes that will increase the value of AIG stock (he remains a big stock-holder) by going after the CDS counterparties.

There’s a lot of bad reporting on the auto announcement from yesterday, most focusing mistakenly (IMO) on Wagoner’s ouster and not the plan to move forward and/or the double standard with banksters.

But the worst take, IMO, is that one that claims the auto industry was being forced to adapt to a new business model but the banksters’ business model was still fundamentally sound. 

Here’s one of Josh’s readers (a view Josh challenges):

One reader writes: "One easy answer to this question is that the banks have a viable business model. They simply need to stop taking so much risk, and they’ll be immensely profitable given the current interests rates they’re borrowing at."

And here’s a bankster quoted in a WaPo article.

Bert Ely, a banking industry analyst in Alexandria, said the administration will likely exercise its powers in only a limited number of a cases, if at all. Even banks that have received repeated injections of government funds, analysts said, appear to be making some progress, and more importantly, are showing more willingness to respond to new economic realities than the automakers were. 

"There is a key difference between GM and Chrysler and the large banks going forward," Ely said. "Those two companies have major questions about their [future] profitability. Whereas the large banks by and large have good business models going forward. The problem is that they’ve got to pay for the sins of the past." 

Now, I find these takes infuriating for two reasons. 

First, it’s not clear these people know WTF they’re talking about, in terms of business model. Are they suggesting that the Big 2.5 focus on larger cars was the failed business model, in spite of the fact that Honda and Toyota–the favorite poster child for "successful" business model–have now embraced the love of big (and in spite of the fact that Obama’s own auto task force demonstrates that middle class buyers favor big)? Or are they suggesting that GM–which has aggressively and successfully expanded into growing markets like China and India–is failing because they’re successful overseas? Or are they saying that GM and Chrysler have failed because they have chosen to stay home and do business in a climate that–because they’re competing against cars assembled with subsidized health care and pensions–penalize them for remaining in their home country? Or are they saying Chrysler failed because it got looted and discarded by Daimler?

It’s easy to say GM and Chrysler have failed–and they definitely made some crappy decisions, particularly in the 1990s (though some of those were perfectly logical, from a business perspective, given the reality of the market and the cost structure of these companies). But these complaints display zero awareness of what the business model in the auto industry really is, or how GM and Ford had already started making changes when events of the last year devastated them.

And then there’s the claim, with little reflection, that the banking industry has a successful model.

Now, frankly, I think there are a lot of market pressures that brought us to the collapse that have gotten little attention. For example, banking regulators in the US have embraced deregulation not just because of Phil Gramm’s ideology, but also because the US’ leadership position in finance has been under threat internationally and we’ve deregulated to remain competitive internationally. And while Fannie and Freddie did stupid things, they did them out of competitive pressure. I suspect the same is true of the brokerage houses. The big publicly held finance companies have to engage in the latest scam or lose business and margins to their competitors. But that deregulation and those scams are precisely the things that brought down the finance industry.

And then there are the presumptions such claims make–such as Josh’s reader, who assumes banks will continue to have access to virtually free money. Many of the assumptions the banksters make when they claim they’ve got a viable business model assume the the federal government will continue to coddle them–and will continue to have the ability to. That may not be the case.

One of the better takes on yesterday’s auto announcement pointed out that the banksters are denial largely because the Obama Administration is, too.

First, the Obama Administration suffers from cognitive regulatory capture. Former denizens of Wall Street are so ensconced in the Administration that they cannot but see events from a ‘Wall Street perspective.’ In effect, they operate like a horse with blinders. Their view takes as axiomatic the importance and needed continued existence of the big banks that they dismiss alternative workout solutions out of hand.

I argued last week that the banksters need someone like Steven Rattner who doesn’t know shit about their industry to assess their business model. 

But as this graphic makes clear (the graphic for 2009 is above, but click through to see how this list has changed over the last decade–you will be fascinated) US banks have lost a great deal of their dominant position (h/t Tom Ricks). At least by market capitalization–one of the measures people focus on to claim GM a failure–US banks’ business model is failing just as spectacularly as is GM. I’m not convinced that means we ought to do more deregulation. But it is high time we stop assuming the banks are healthy but for a few crummy decisions. 

graphic by PirateCat

Marcy earlier noted the article in today’s Washington Post by Peter Finn and Joby Warrick detailing the story surrounding abu-Zubaydah’s capture and torture. I want to pick up with Marcy’s last line:

Yet more reason they destroyed the torture tapes showing Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation.

Well, yes, because it was crystal clear at the outset the explanation initially given by the Bush/Cheney Administration – that they had researched the matter completely and the tapes had no evidentiary value in any possible proceeding whatsoever and they were concerned about privacy of hard working investigators – was totally bogus.

It has been my belief from the outset that the reason the "torture tapes" were destroyed was not simply because they depicted the brutal torture of detainee subjects but, just as importantly, if not more so, they demonstrated there was no credible/usable information produced as a result of that torture. Warrick and Finn confirm this. Even worse, they confirm what little good information the Bushies did extract from abu-Zubaydah was obtained through traditional interrogation prior to the onset of the torture program:

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida’s tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida — chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates — was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda’s chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda, according to a portrait of the man that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement and military sources.

And there you have it. The Bushies made the conscious and criminal decision to go full tilt torture having direct reason to know both that abu-Zubaydah was cooperating through traditional interrogation and he was of very marginal use as an information source to start with.

Frustrated, the Bush administration ratcheted up the pressure — for the first time approving the use of increasingly harsh interrogations, including waterboarding.
…
The application of techniques such as waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime — prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al-Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.
…
Abu Zubaida’s revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms….Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.

"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

Such is the clincher as to why the torture tapes had to be destroyed. It wasn’t just that Bush/Cheney et. al wanted to keep evidence of their torture program secret, there was never any complete way to do that. But there was only one thing that could prove they tortured for nothing and got nothing – the tapes. Cheney and his coterie of fellow Torquemadas were fiends proud of their handiwork; if they had evidence that it worked, they would have kept it. They burn spies for fun, crow on television about their willingness to torture and what they have accomplished, do you really think for one second they wouldn’t retain proof if they had it?

And let us not forget just who we are talking about here – it is the White House Principals group:

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet and Ashcroft. Means, motive and opportunity. Who could have imagined?

This certainly explains why it was top White House lawyers including Gonzales, Addington, Bellinger and Miers, with "vigorous sentiment", assisted the CIA in the decision and process to destroy the torture tapes of abu-Zubaydah and others. There are definable offenses in their conduct: obstruction of justice, contempt of court, conspiracy, false statement/perjury, mishandling of classified material, and willful destruction of material evidence in federal investigations.

There exist patently clear crimes; where is the criminal justice system? We should not have to be humiliated by having to rely on other first world countries such as Spain, or international committees such as the Red Cross, to show us functioning justice and the rule of law.

I don’t want the Obama Administration to be partisan and spiteful, I want them to do their damn job. Is that too much to ask?

It is here; can you feel the anticipation? That’s right, the start of the 2009 Formula One season. There are many changes for the coming season as Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosely try to reel in the costs of fielding a ride on the F1 grid. Bernie is his usual cocky self, but Max had a bit of a rough year last year (If you aren’t familiar, do click the link; it is an, interesting story. The hot and kinky video here).

The big news for the 2009 campaign are the new rules on engine and car design intended to equalize competition and reduce costs across the sport. A very cool video is provided and it is narrated by Sebastian Vettel of the Toro Rosso (Red Bull) team. Here is a good written synopsis of the new rules.

Enough of the chit chat, let’s get down to business. The opening race of the year is down under in glorious Australia. The Australian GP is run at Albert Park in Melbourne (circuit diagram here). Here is the grid of teams and drivers for 2009. Toyota and Mercedes looked hot in practice last night. Qualifying is starting tonight soon after I post this; coverage on SpeedTV. The race will be live tomorrow night on SpeedTV at 1:30 am EST and 10:30 pm PST/FDL time.

Same as every year, my heart rides with Ferrari. Always has, always will. There is a reason Ferrari Red is blood red, that is what the heart pumps. Felipe Massa will, I think, again be ahead of Kimi Raikkonen. Both will be trying to reclaim the crown for Ferrari from Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes-McLaren. Keep an eye out for young Robert Kubica though, the guy is an up and coming talent behind the wheel.

Also on tap this weekend is the Elite Eight in NCAA Basketball. My brackets got semtex exploded Thursday with both Duke, and the team I picked to win the Championship, Memphis, getting taken out. I am truly screwed in my group pool. Oh well, what ya gonna do? Good golly did Missouri and Villanova look good though. Louisville absolutely kicked the you know what out of my local Arizona Wildcats. Oklahoma ripped Syracuse. Michigan St. and Carolina round out the Elite Eight. Who ya got? Trash is open!

I’m honestly not surprised that Darrell Issa is so insecure in the face of Michelle Obama’s buff triceps that he is now trying to regulate her.

Under Issa’s amendment, any government policy group that Mrs. Obama or another first spouse regularly participates in would be subject to a law requiring meetings to be announced in advance and, in most instances, public.

At the March 10 markup, Issa’s proposal triggered more than 35 minutes of impassioned debate. I’ve linked video of the exchange below, but Democrats clearly seemed to be recoiling at what some viewed as an effort to target Mrs. Obama.

[snip]

“We are trying actually to protect the historic role of the first lady,” Issa insisted, repeatedly invoking the “transparency” mantra of the Obama administration. “I believe this is open government at its finest.”

[snip]

“We should have a set of rules that future presidents, vice presidents, first ladies and spouses of vice presidents, understand what their do’s and don’t’s are. Can they have an open meeting? Can they have a closed meeting?” Issa said. “Perhaps we need to get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for an opinion.”

(Nor am I surprised that the Politico has titled this article as, "GOP transparency push seen as attack on Michelle O.")

But I want to know where the fuck Darrell Issa was when we were trying to protect "the historic role of the Vice President" for the last eight years?!?!? I mean, Issa had no problem with Mr. Fourth Branch conducting major policy work in hiding. But apparently he has decided now is the time to regulate Veeps and First Ladies. 

Joe Donnelly asked Tim Geithner whether we ought to eliminate naked default swaps. Geithner said that it’s too hard to distinguish hedges from gambling. Donnelly pointed out that we’re taking money out of truck drivers’ pockets and waitress’ pockets to pay off Wall Street’s gambling debts. Ultimately, though, Geithner said we don’t need to–and that it would be very hard to–do that.

I guess the truck drivers will still be asked to pay off rich men’s gambling debts. 

graphic by politicalbase

On March 10, 2009 Emptywheel noted that the five year statute of limitation on the initial criminal wiretapping acts by the Bush/Cheney Administration were expiring.

…the statute of limitations on the potentially criminal March 11 wiretaps of Belew expire today. By all appearances, that means the statute will expire without George Bush being punished for illegally wiretapping an American citizen, even though clear evidence of that criminal wiretapping almost certainly exists.

This is because the one period of time that it is crystal clear that the Bush/Cheney surveillance program was operating without legal sanction was subsequent to the hospital incident:

On March 11, 2004, remember, the warrantless wiretap program was operating without the approval of the Acting Attorney General. After Jim Comey refused to recertify the program on March 9, after Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales tried to get John Ashcroft to overrule Comey from his ICU bed on March 10, Bush reauthorized the program using only the legal sanction of then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales on March 11.

Thus, even if the rest of the program were somehow deemed legal (which it wouldn’t be, because it violated FISA, which is the question at hand), it would be not be deemed legal on March 11, 2004, because the program didn’t have sanction from the Attorney General.

There are, or were at least, three critical dates on which the lawyers for the al-Haramain organization knew themselves to be wiretapped that occurred during the period in which criminality would undoubtedly attach, March 10, 11 and 25 of 2004. It is believed that the program was reinstated under formal footing (as opposed to being run on Alberto Gonzales’ worthless signature as was the case in the days after the hospital incident) in early April, 2004. So, while Emptywheel gave the obituary on the expiration of the first two dates of known criminal culpability, I am here to give the post mortem on the last. It died at 12 pm Eastern time last night.

Now the one entity that has, and has had all along, the proof of the Bush/Cheney criminality in its hot little hands is the United States Department of Justice. You would think that the national press would be swimming with articles about the DOJ declining to pursue Executive Branch crimes in the biggest conspiracy against American citizens in the history of the country. But nary a peep. The only sound was a regurgitating by the Washington Post of information we already knew and that perpetrates a misconception about the state of the al-Haramain case as it exists In Judge Walker’s court.

So, the day after the DOJ has let the five year statute for the known underlying criminal acts expire without any action, all the while fighting like rabid dogs to conceal the criminality, the Washington Post and the rest of the media are as silent as a vacuum about the government shirking its duty to the Constitution and citizenry.

Lovely. The national media is asleep at its insipid wheel and there is effectively no Justice Department, only the department of just us.

A few days ago, on March 18, fell the 46th anniversary of a momentous day in American jurisprudence, the day the decision in Gideon v. Wainright was rendered. Prior to Gideon, criminal defendants in the United States had a right to be represented by counsel, but not the right to have counsel appointed if they could not afford their own attorney. It was a watershed moment of enlightenment that is worthy of a fresh look.

Clarence Gideon was wrongly charged with breaking and entering a pool hall that had been burglarized, all based on a false accusation. Gideon was a poor man who lived in a rooming house and literally had but $25 to his name. From Wiki:

He appeared in court and was too poor to afford counsel, whereupon the following conversation took place:

The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.

GIDEON: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.

Gideon was forced, therefore, to act as his own counsel and conduct a defense of himself in court, emphasizing his innocence in the case. Nevertheless, the jury returned a guilty verdict, sentencing him to serve five years in the state penitentiary.

From his prison cell at Florida State Prison, making use of the prison library and writing in pencil on prison stationery, Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in a suit against the Secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections, Louie L. Wainwright. He argued that he had been denied counsel and, therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.

But what the Supreme Court gave in Gideon is under an attack that is destroying one of the tenets of the modern due process guarantee in the American criminal system. In a chilling opinion piece in the March 10, 2009 Washington Post, former Vice-President Walter F. Mondale, who as Minnesota Attorney General participated along with AGs from 21 other states in amici support of Gideon’s demand for appointed counsel, details just how far the nation has regressed:

Yet states across the country routinely fail to appoint counsel to people who are genuinely unable to afford representation on their own. A report published by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School last fall, "Eligible for Justice," found that if Gideon were to face criminal charges in Florida today, he might well be denied a public defender. Under Florida law, he could be disqualified for counsel if he has assets exceeding $2,500 (excluding a house), a car valued above $5,000, or had posted bail of more than $5,000, even if none of those assets permitted him to pay the retainer — often several thousand dollars — that defense lawyers routinely charge.
…
Sadly, Gideon’s chances of getting counsel would be worse elsewhere. In New Hampshire, he could be found ineligible for counsel if he had a home valued at more than $20,000, even if he could not sell the home in time to finance his defense and even if selling it would leave him homeless. Courts in Virginia could deny him counsel because of the amount of money possessed by family members, even if Gideon had no power over that money.

Of course the right to counsel is under attack, what essential due process right under the Constitution isn’t? We talk almost daily about illegal wiretapping, datamining and other invasions of privacy, illegal detention and torture, manipulation and intimidation of the press, parallel proceedings and intimidation of family members to circumvent individual’s right against self incrimination. All under attack thanks to an increasingly hungry authoritarian state, war on terror, war on drugs and a perpetuated state of fear. It is a war on the bill of rights; a war on the citizenry.

There is plenty every day on the more hot button Constitutional attacks, today let’s remember Clarence Gideon and what his story stands for. As the New York Times related last November, public defenders in every federal state and local jurisdiction are overworked, underpaid and unappreciated. In seven states, public defenders’ offices are refusing to take new cases and/or suing to have their caseloads reduced; citing overwhelming workloads that they say undermine the constitutional right to counsel for the poor.

Mondale puts the bigger picture in perspective:

Many European countries provide such representation to indigent civil litigants. The backtracking that we are experiencing in the area of criminal representation undermines these efforts to move forward in the civil area. Our justice system depends on the idea that everyone is to be treated fairly, but a lack of resources is affecting the progress the Gideon decision brought to our criminal justice system and is blocking progressive efforts to extend the right to counsel in certain civil cases.

This month marks the 46th anniversary of the ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright. It is crucial that the states rededicate themselves to providing competent defense counsel to all people facing criminal charges who cannot afford to pay. The federal government, too, has an important role in providing the states with technical assistance, monitoring their compliance and enforcing the constitutional right to counsel. The promise of Gideon is ringing hollow, both for defendants, who count on competent counsel for their freedom, and for our society, which counts on the courts to achieve fair and reliable results. We cannot move forward until we stop the erosion of Gideon’s promise to criminal defendants.

Fritz Mondale is right to sound the call of Gideon’s Trumpet. We all should. Due process is not a natural force of nature, it is the work of a conscious and determined society; you have to want due process, fight for it and struggle to insure its application in the most heinous cases and circumstances that test your will. The Founding Fathers planted the seed, it is time to stop leaving the fruit withering on the vine.

You live in towns, cities, counties and states that have public defender programs. They work hard and are underpaid. Give them a kind thought every now and then and vote to increase their budgets and capabilities. It is your Constitution at work.