The NYT has what they bill as the most comprehensive profile of the alleged anthrax killer yet.

Before I get into the important new details from the profile, can you help me with this detail? This is billed as a comprehensive profile. Yet when the NYT gets around to describing the attacks, here’s what they say:

Days later came word of the anthrax letters. First, the death of a tabloid photo editor in Florida, Robert Stevens. Then the poison letters mailed to NBC News and The New York Post with notes declaring “Death to America! Death to Israel!”

And finally the letters to Senators Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, and Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, spewing deadly spores through the postal system and across official Washington.

Particularly given that one of the biggest unexplained details of the "attacks" is how, right after the last attack and just a month and a half after Judy reported on a more potent anthrax program, Judy got an envelope full of fake anthrax. Don’t you think the NYT could have mentioned those details?

Nevermind–we know how they like to pretend Judy never existed. 

Speaking of which, one detail I was previously unaware of is that the Army quashed an investigation led by Ft. Detrick’s own scientists.

 When institute scientists began their own review of the evidence, nervous Army officials ordered the inquiry dropped.

That, too, seems worth more detail.

The story also reveals more details about the fibers found on the envelopes sent to victims–yet virtually unmentioned in the FBI’s limited releases about Ivins.

Meticulous study of tiny brown fibers found stuck to the envelopes led nowhere.

Those are the brown fibers that didn’t match Ivins’ own hair, nor any of his clothes that the FBI carted away from his house.

And it turns out that Ivins testified before a grand jury in 2007.

In May 2007, Dr. Ivins — assured by prosecutors that he was not a target of the investigation — testified under oath to a grand jury on two consecutive days. He answered all the questions about anthrax. Only once did he plead his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, when he was asked about his secret interest in sororities.

Given the timing, I’d be curious why over a year passed and they got no closer to Ivins.

But the biggest revelation of the story is that the most dubious (IMO) theory of the case came from the woman who first pitched Ivins as a suspect. You’ll recall that the only logic the FBI offered for why Ivins would twice drive to Princeton to mail anthrax is that the mailbox was on the same street as an office for a sorority that he obsessed about?

Well, the person who first suggested he might be responsible did so, partly, based on her allegation that Ivins had stalked her because of her affiliation with the same sorority.  That person is Nancy Haigwood, who knew Ivins from grad school at UNC.

There was more to Bruce Ivins than his Army colleagues imagined, and Nancy Haigwood knew it.

She met him in 1976 in the biology department at the University of North Carolina, where he was a post-doctoral fellow and she was a graduate student. She found him odd and tried gently to disengage, but he kept in touch, pressing her with questions about her sorority, Kappa Kappa Gamma.

[snip]

Outside her home in Maryland in 1982, a vandal spray-painted her sorority’s Greek initials, “KKG,” on her fence, sidewalk and fiancé’s car window. A year later a letter she had not written appeared under her name in The Frederick News-Post, defending Kappa Kappa Gamma and the hazing of recruits. She was certain Dr. Ivins was responsible.

She said she had found Dr. Ivins’s attentions creepy. She never told him her Maryland address, but he found it anyway. Later, in e-mail messages, he mentioned details about her sons that she had not shared with him.

“He damaged my property, he impersonated me and he stalked me,” said Dr. Haigwood, now director of the Oregon National Primate Research Center.

Apparently, in spite of his alleged stalking, she still accepted and read email from Ivins–including an email he sent in November 2001 showing himself working with the Ames anthrax.

Dr. Ivins titled his e-mail message “In the lab” and attached photographs: the gaunt microbiologist bending over Petri dishes of anthrax, and colonies of the deadly bacteria, white commas against blood-red nutrient.

[snip]

“Hi, all,” he began the e-mail message. “We were taking some photos today of blood agar cultures of the now infamous ‘Ames’ strain of Bacillus anthracis. Here are a few.” He sent the message to those who ordinarily received his corny jokes and dour news commentaries: his wife and two teenage children, former colleagues and high school classmates. He even included an F.B.I. agent working on the case.

[snip]

“I read that e-mail, and I thought, He did it,” the fellow scientist, Nancy Haigwood, said in a recent interview.

[snip]

In November 2001, when she got the e-mailed photograph of Dr. Ivins working with anthrax in the laboratory, she noticed that he was not wearing gloves — a safety breach she thought showed an unnerving “hubris.” That fed her hunch that he had sent the deadly letters.

Later, when Ivins had become a suspect, the FBI recruited Haigwood to try to bring Ivins out.

Early in 2006, with the investigation largely stalled, Nancy Haigwood heard from two different F.B.I. agents. Four years after she had reported her suspicions of Dr. Ivins, the bureau suddenly seemed interested.“They said, ‘We need your help,’ ” Dr. Haigwood recalled. She was frustrated by the delay, but when the agents asked her to strike up a new correspondence with Dr. Ivins, she reluctantly complied. “I was afraid of this man,” she said. “I was convinced he had done it, and I was afraid he’d send me an anthrax letter.”

[snip]

As the bureau’s undercover informant, Dr. Haigwood struck up a breezy e-mail correspondence about scientific grants, pets and travel. Dr. Ivins complained about psychological screening and other “rather obnoxious and invasive measures” imposed at Fort Detrick since the anthrax attacks.

“I got so tired of the endless questions that I finally got a lawyer, after almost three dozen interviews,” he wrote in late 2006, referring to interviews by the F.B.I. agents. One session, he said, was “virtually an interrogation.”

Is it any wonder, with Haigwood as their undercover informant, that their sole explanation for their biggest non-scientific hole in the case is that this is all about Haigwood and her sorority?

For the moment, then, I remain of the same opinion as Senator Leahy: there’s no reason to believe Ivins acted alone, and plenty of reason to believe he did have help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE TWO

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

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

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

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. 

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.

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 senator; now Reid is urging extra-legal (effectively ultra-vires) action by Illinois. He should butt out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Sure, Iseman’s lawyers may try to force the NYT to produce these two staffers, but the issue centers on whether these staffers did in fact have the concern that the relationship might or had grown romantic and whether they did in fact get orders to keep her away from McCain, not whether McCain did have a romantic relationship with Iseman, which the story does not allege. 

Which brings us to their first allegation of defamation–which is fascinating for its structure and assumptions:

… 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 …

They’re basing their claim on an "alleged personal friendship," but that’s not what they’re bugged about. Rather, Iseman’s lawyers are arguing that doing so would be "inappropriate." Inappropriate, for a lobbyist. And further, they’re arguing that the NYT insinuated doing so would be a "conflict of interest." For whom?!?!? For Iseman’s clients, who got what they paid for, favorable legislative outcomes? And, finally, they’re arguing that doing so would be a violation of professional and ethical norms. Thus, the paragraph suggests that using an "alleged personal friendship" to get legislative favors would be unprofessional and unethical.

You see, I think this suit is going to raise some interesting questions about the proper role of a lobbyist.

Which will, in turn, focus on Vicki Iseman’s methods. Which, as the National Journal reported (apparently, without being sued for defamation), were noticed on the Hill.

Former Senate aides, speaking anonymously, say that they saw no evidence that Iseman had a personal relationship with McCain, but they add that she could be flirtatious while working the Hill.

The NYT story also made clear that one issue was Iseman’s claims about her relationship with McCain, not her actual relationship with him.

Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” [my emphasis]

An allegation that Weaver repeated for the National Journal.

"The conduct I was talking about," he says, "was her telling people that she had unusual access to the [Senate] Commerce Committee and the Senate office" of McCain.

So Iseman seems to have fewer complaints with the National Journal story, which alleges she flirted and was saying that she had great access to McCain. Both of which would seem to go to the question of her approach to lobbying.

As I alluded, though, I’m most interested in the report that Iseman seemed to believe that John Weaver was behind allegations that Iseman invited McCain to share her blankie on her famous plane ride back from FL–something Weaver denied.

Curiously, though, Iseman knows precisely who might leak a story that she asked McCain to share a blanket with her once.

Iseman told National Journal that [John] Weaver was the unidentified aide who The Times‘ story said flew back to Washington on Paxson’s corporate jet with Iseman and McCain after the Florida fundraising event in February 1999. She says that The Times had asked her, in an e-mail, about an incident on the plane in which she reportedly asked McCain to share a blanket with her. Only Weaver, she says, could be the source for that allegation, which she heatedly denied. The Times did not publish the allegation, and Weaver strongly denies being the source of that information. [my emphasis]

This is what I don’t get. If she’s certain that only Weaver could be the source of the allegation, doesn’t that suggest she knows he–the only aide on the plane–was witness to something that only he would know? If she hadn’t asked to share her blankie with McCain, couldn’t anyone be the source for the allegation?

When Iseman first tried to defend her reputation, she went directly after Weaver–whose allegations have been on the record, but careful. 

Interestingly, a lot of the language in this suit doesn’t really apply to lobbyists–such as the claim that NYT reported that Iseman had violated the public trust. That’s language straight out of the original NYT article–though used to refer to McCain, not Iseman.

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. 

[snip]

Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign issued the following statement Wednesday night:

“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

This suit seems to be an attempt to force the NYT to reveal the anonymous Senate sources who may well be sources for the National Journal article as well, to which Iseman’s lawyers appear to have no objections. But also, it seems to be an attack on the NYT for allegations that Iseman, at least, seems to believe come from Weaver. 

All of which is my roundabout way of saying this seems to be an attack on Weaver.

At least according to the National Journal, there’s no question that Iseman has suffered from the story about her lobbying efforts of McCain.

Former Senate staffers who know Iseman well say that she faces an uphill battle to re-establish her credentials on Capitol Hill. "This town can eat you up — and that’s what happened to her," a former McCain aide says. "That’s what happens sometimes in the Washington fast lane." Separately, another former Senate aide says that Iseman has become "kind of toxic" on the Hill. "She will be forever linked," he says, "as the lobbyist in question with John McCain."

But from the two main stories on her lobbying of McCain suggest that the suit will come down to the allegations about Iseman’s own claims about her relationship with McCain as much as allegations the NYT reported. Which may well amount to an attack–one framed in terms used by McCain’s team as much as anything else–on John Weaver.

Just 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 whatsoever. From a political perspective, you could say the longer Blago stays in office and it’s "business as usual" the more he legitimizes himself, he is just extending out the clock and trying to make things look normal. But, from the legal, criminal defense, perspective this does not make sense at all for Blago. If I am Blago’s lawyer, and if we were truly going to fight the charges; I would want to get on with it. I would want to force prosecutor Fitzgerald’s hand, especially so if I thought the US Atty couldn’t make his case — I’d force the timeline to make him put up his goods or dismiss in order to refile it later. And I would want the public to see me demanding a timely opportunity to fight the charges and prove my innocence and would relish the though of putting the adversary on their heels.

Now, some may argue that the defense did this because they knew the court would grant an opposed motion, and did not want to get on the dark side of the judge. I don’t buy this as a solid explanation, no defendant under these circumstances is going to get in any hot water for demanding speedy trial rights.

The only explanation that comes easily to the discussion is that both defendants wish to curry favor with, and appear reasonable to, the prosecution. This could be in the form of pure comity, the necessity of time to negotiate a plea, or both. My money is on both.

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.

Davis had said he would reject a Blagojevich appointment because the governor had "lost his moral authority" and would rather see "a governor who is not tainted" make the appointment. But on Tuesday, Davis said he would support Burris’ selection.

I have no idea whether Genson subsequently endorsed Blago’s political strategy of going ahead with the appointment (I would imagine Genson tracked any conversations about the appointment closely). But Blago sure seems intent on ratcheting up the pressure.

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?