Is here. Or rather, the Inspector General’s report describing his criminal referral for lying to Congress.

We have referred this matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for a decision on whether the evidence warrants a criminal prosecution. We provided to the prosecutor the evidence we gathered in the course of our investigation, including transcripts of interviews and relevant documents and e-mails.

[snip]

Schlozman is no longer employed by the Department and, therefore, is not subject to disciplinary action by the Department. We recommend, however, that, if criminal prosecution is declined these findings be considered if Schlozman seeks federal employment in the future. We believe that his violations of the merit system principles set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act, federal regulations, and Department policy, and his subsequent false statements to Congress render him unsuitable for federal service.

Of course, the report is dated July 2, 2008. So what has happened?

Here’s the answer to that question:

We referred the findings from our investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in March 2008. We completed this written report of investigation in July 2008.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office informed us on January 9, 2009, of its decision to decline prosecution of Schlozman. The Interim U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, was recused from the matter and the decision.

So, after taking ten months to decide whether or not to prosecute (ten months which happened to include an election in which one of those named in the report–Hans Von Spakovsky–served on FEC), they now release the report. Nice.

Consider this a working thread. I need to run out for a few hours, and I assume that WO and others will get a good start on this before then.

Jane (here, here, and here) and bmaz (here, here, and here) have been diligently chronicling the continuing saga of seating Roland Burris. In the last week, we’ve seen Reid and Durbin scream Go! Stop! Go! at Burris.

But it turns out, since last Monday, they’ve had a Congressional Research Service study explaining whether or not they have to seat Burris, one they seem to have lost in all the excitement. It gives a basis I’ve not heard yet on which to exclude Burris (no link yet). 

Under the Powell decision and rationale, and under the express constitutional grant of authority, the Senate (and House) may, in addition to examining “qualifications” of Members-elect, examine the “elections” and “returns” of their own Members, that is, whether an individual presenting valid credentials has been “duly” chosen. A few years after the Powell decision, the Supreme Court in Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972), clearly affirmed the right of the Senate to make the final and conclusive determination concerning the election process and seating of its own Members.

[snip]

Additionally, the Senate has from time-to-time examined the election or selection process (prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, Senators were selected by state legislatures) to see if corruption or bribery has so tainted the process as to call into question its validity.

All that says, really, is to look beyond just Powell to Roudebush as well to see whether or not the Senate can exclude Burris if it wants (bmaz assures me he will look up Roudebush once he gets done with his actual lawyering today).  And that corruption or bribery is fair game.

That said, even with Burris’ admission that he talked to Lon Monk about the seat, the way in which Blago’s defense-or-maybe-not lawyer Sam Adam Jr. brokered the appointment, and other dubious ties between Burris and Blago, it’s not clear that Congress yet has a clear case that Burris’ appointment–as distinct from Blago’s earlier attempts to sell the seat–involved bribery or any corruption outside the norm in Chicago politics. 

Update: Lawrence Tribe weighs in on the "they can exclude Burris" side. Note, this appears to have been published before Obama said he was staying out of this. 

By now you know how poorly Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have played their aces and eights hand on the Roland Burris appointment to Barack Obama’s former Senate seat. Reid and Durbin went all in with their chips on the Illinois Secretary of State and, predictably, lost their pleated dandy shirts.

Illinois law and the Constitution have always been contra to Reid and Durbin’s intransigence on Burris, but the disingenuous duo have always fallen back on their precious ancient Senate Rule II. They have steadfastly portrayed themselves as honorable protectors of the high ground of ethics, and citizens and the rubes in the media have bought off on it. To wit, Durbin grandly proclaimed late Friday:

…the Senate seat could remain vacant until Blagojevich is removed from office and the lieutenant governor takes over, making a fresh appointment.

He said the Senate cannot waive a 125-year-old rule requiring the signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state on any election or appointment.

Now, it is hard to tell whether these lustrous paragons of virtue are being intentionally dishonest, or are simply tragically ignorant of the questionable foundation of the argument they rely on. But it is one or the other. First off, as Jane pointed out Friday,

the 1884 Senate rule Durbin and Reid rely on was promulgated before the passage of the 17th Amendment as well as before the Supreme Court decision in Powell v McCormack. Reid and Durbin are duplicitous in thinking their antiquated Senate rule trumps the official selection pursuant to the 17th Amendment and Illinois statutory law.

So, there is that. But, guess what? After all this, it turns out the vaunted Senate Rule II isn’t even the bright line mandate they have been stating. In fact, Senate Rule II is simply an antiquated suggestion for a document template. While subparagraph 2 of Rule II mandates that the Secretary of the Senate keep a journal of all certificates signed by the governor and secretary of state of the appointing electing and/or appointing state for each Senator, the operative language on the form of the certificate is, contrary to what Reid and Durbin have been stating, not mandatory in the least. From the official Senate Rules:

3. The Secretary of the Senate shall send copies of the following recommended forms to the governor and secretary of state of each State wherein an election is about to take place or an appointment is to be made so that they may use such forms if they see fit. (emphasis added)

So, not only has any "mandatory" effect of Rule II been modified and/or abrogated by the 17th Amendment and Powell v. McCormack, but the thing is suggestive at best in the first place.

But, wait, there’s more! The Senate Pinocchios are at it again when they say the Senate "cannot waive" strict compliance with, and that there has never been any diversion from, Senate Rule II. Indeed, the Senate has done just that, and quite recently too. And it was in another case of a highly dubious cronyish appointment in a hotbed of corruption state. Yep, it’s our old friends in Alaska. Go figure.

When Frank Murkowski was elected Governor of Alaska in 2002, he resigned his Senate seat and appointed his daughter Lisa to fill the seat. There was no countersignature from the Alaska Secretary of State on the appointing certificate. There couldn’t be, because Alaska is one of six states that do not have a Secretary of State. Now, in fairness, there is reason to believe the Alaska Lieutenant Governor countersigned Murkowski’s nepotistic appointment certificate; however, the episode is proof of the complete intellectual dishonesty of the position that Reid and Durbin have been publicly peddling. If the Senate can accept the technically non-compliant countersignature of a Lt. Governor, exactly how do Reid and Durbin intend to refuse the word of the Illinois Supreme Court and the independent acknowledgement of authenticity just supplied by the actual Illinois Secretary of State?

There is not one single aspect of this imbroglio in which Roland Burris, and master tormenter Blagojevich, have not handed Reid and Durbin their rear ends on a silver platter. Now it turns out even their vaunted fallback is founded on vapor. It is time for them to quit while they are only terminally behind.

I just reviewed Burris’ testimony before the impeachment committee. I was struck by Sam Adam Jr.’s efforts to orchestrate a wiretap that might exonerate Blago of any charges he attempted to sell the Senate seat for personal gain. Here’s what happened.

December 26, afternoon: Sam Adam Jr., a Blago lawyer who may or may not be part of Blago’s defense team, called Burris and told him he had something urgent to tell him. Burris was curious what he had to say, so–even though he was preparing for a black tie event, told him to come over. Presumably, even if Adam called from Blago’s tapped phones, this conversation would be minimized bc of attorney client privilege.

December 26, 4PM: Adam shows up. They have a conversation. Since it occurs in a place presumably free of wiretaps, we only have Burris’ version.

December 28, 4PM: Adam shows up to Burris’ house again. Same thing: presumably this conversation wasn’t tapped, so we only have Burris’ version.

December 28, shortly thereafter: Blago calls Burris and offers him the seat. Blago goes on at some length (per Burris’ description) listing Burris’ qualifications. Gosh. It’s as if Blago were performing an honest offer for the Senate seat, complete with listing all the reasons Burris is qualified. This conversation is on tape, and will make a nice trial exhibit to prove that Blago really was only trying to appoint someone qualified for the seat, and not seeking personal gain for it.

December 30: Blago announces the pick in a joint press conference. I find the delay interesting; something I’ll come back to. 

Isn’t that all neat and tidy? What I find particularly interesting is how it matches up with what we know of the offer Blago made to Danny Davis before he made an offer to Burris. 

December 24 morning; Davis and Sam Adam Jr. meet in Davis’ Chicago office. This conversation would not only not be tapped, but would be protected by legislative privilege. Like Burris, Davis had previously said he would not accept the spot, but he heard Adam’s offer anyway:

Davis said he was told "the governor would like to appoint me to the vacant spot." After Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9, Davis, who sought the appointment from him when he thought Blagojevich was playing it straight, said he would not take the job if offered.

But he conferred with Adam anyway, out of "respect" for the office of the governor, Davis told me; besides, Blagojevich has not yet been indicted nor found guilty of anything.

December 26, 9AM: Davis and Adam meet (apparently again in person) again; Davis rejects the offer.

"I indicated I came to the conclusion there was too much discomfort on my part and the part of my family," Davis said. Anyway, he could not see how the governor could name anyone and make it stick.

But most important, Davis said he realized that if he took the job, "It would be difficult to generate the trust level people would have to have in me. I just decided there was too much turmoil, too much disagreement. It was something I wanted to do, but I said I would not take an appointment from the governor."

Of course, in Davis’ case, Blago never got the chance to call and make the offer on tape, all nice and tidy like. But note that it only took Blago 7 hours to find a new potential candidate?

Incidentally, Burris’ testimony ends (around 1:24:38) with Representative Rose asking Genson a question about Adam’s role.

Rose: I hope at some point in time we’re going to be able to ask some question as to what the status of Mr. Adam is.

Genson: Well, I’ll give you the status but don’t count on Mr. Adam answering.

Genson, of course, doesn’t explain Adam’s status. Awkward pause. End of Burris testimony. 

Update: A reader who–as a lawyer–knows this much better than I, corrects me on my suggestion that an Adam-Burris call would in any way be protected, particularly by attorney client privilege. That said, I think Fitz is bending over backward on minimization here, so he may not look that closely at calls with retained lawyers involved. Besides, the "Burris appointment as exonerating act" will be so easy to refute, who needs it?

There were two things of note that came up at yesterday’s Roland Burris testimony before the IL impeachment committee. His $1.2 million campaign loan gift from Joseph Stroud–who was also giving to Blagojevich at the time (who, incidentally, also employs Vicki Iseman as a lobbyist). And, his discussion(s) with Lon Monk about wanting the Senate Seat.

The Monk revelation is important for several reasons:

• It violates the spirit–though not the letter–of Burris’ affidavit describing his appointment
• Monk is a central player in the Blago complaint–and was wiretapped himself
• The wiretaps Fitz was trying to get the legislature pertain to a scheme between Blago and Monk

The Monk disclosure violates the spirit of Burris’ affidavit

In the affidavit he submitted to the committee, Burris claimed that, 

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.

Yet, in response to a question from State Rep Jim Durkin about whether he had talked to anyone "associated" with Blago, Burris reluctantly admitted he spoke with Monk about the seat, "in September or maybe it was in July."

Now, Burris may well say that he didn’t consider Monk a "representative" of Blago. Monk used to be Blago’s Chief of Staff, but was no longer employed by Blago when Burris had the conversation(s) with him. Furthermore, Burris claims he didn’t read the Blago complaint, which doesn’t name Monk by name anyway, so there’s no reason why the repeated mention of Lobbyist 1 in the complaint should have led Burris to reveal his contacts with that same Lobbyist 1. So Burris’ conversation with Monk certainly doesn’t contradict the letter of his affidavit.

Nevertheless, Burris was chatting about the seat with someone close to Blago, in the process of trying to drum up state business from that lobbyist specifically in context of his ties to Blago.

Monk was a central player in the Blago complaint

Burris’ revelation is all the more interesting given Monk’s role in the Blago complaint. Blago apparently used him to pressure potential donors on several schemes. Blago said Monk was going to hit up a Tollway Contractor for $500,000 tied to a $1.8 billion road project. 

According to Individual A, after Individual B left the meeting on October 6, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A that he was going to make an upcoming announcement concerning a $1.8 billion project involving the Tollway Authority. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A that Lobbyist 1 was going to approach Highway Contractor 1 to ask for $500,000 for Friends of Blagojevich. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A that, “I could have made a larger announcement but wanted to see how they perform by the end of the year. If they don’t perform, fuck ‘em.” According to Individual A, he/she believed that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was telling Individual A that ROD BLAGOJEVICH expected Highway Contractor 1 to raise $500,000 in contributions to Friends of Blagojevich and that ROD BLAGOJEVICH is willing to commit additional state money to the Tollway project but is waiting to see how much money Highway Contractor 1 raises for Friends of Blagojevich. [my emphasis]

Monk was also supposed to help hit up the Executive of the Children’s Hospital for $50,000 tied to $8 million in funding for the hospital.

On November 12, 2008, at approximately 8:26 p.m., Fundraiser A called ROD BLAGOJEVICH and reported the status of fundraising efforts. During the conversation ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed Fundraiser A to call Lobbyist 1 the following day and ask Lobbyist 1 what to do about the fact that Hospital Executive 1 is not calling Fundraiser A back and inquire whether it was possible that Individual A had instructed Hospital Executive 1 not to call back.[my emphasis]

And he was centrally involved in efforts to get money from the horse racing industry before Blago signed a bill diverting money from casino revenues to the horse racing industry.

Also during this call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Fundraiser A spoke about efforts to raise funds from two other individuals before the end of the year. Fundraiser A advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH that with respect to one of these individuals, Contributor 1, Lobbyist 1 had informed Fundraiser A that Contributor 1 was “good for it” but that Lobbyist 1 was “going to talk with you (ROD BLAGOJEVICH) about some sensitivities legislatively, tonight when he sees you, with regard to timing of all of this.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked, “Right, before the end of the year though, right?” Fundraiser A responded affirmatively. Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he knows Lobbyist 1 is “down there (Springfield, Illinois)” with Contributor 1 “pushing a bill.” In a series of calls since that time, it became clear that the bill Lobbyist 1 is interested in is in the Office of the Governor awaiting ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s signature. The bill, which is believed to be a law which involves directing a percentage of casino revenue to the horse racing industry, is expected to be signed as soon as next week. In a call on December 3, Lobbyist 1 advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH that Lobbyist 1 had a private conversation with Contributor 1 about the contribution (“commitment”) Contributor 1 had not yet made and advised Contributor 1 “look, there is a concern that there is going to be some skittishness if your bill gets signed because of the timeliness of the commitment” and made clear that the contribution “got to be in now.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH commented to Lobbyist 1 “good” and “good job.” In a call the next day, Lobbyist 1 asked ROD BLAGOJEVICH to call Contributor 1 “just to say hello, I’m working on the timing of this thing, but it’s gonna get done.” Lobbyist 1 suggested that it is better for ROD BLAGOJEVICH to make the call personally “from a pressure point of view.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he would call Contributor 1 and indicate that ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted to do an event (fundraiser) downstate “so we can get together and start picking some dates to do a bill signing.” Lobbyist 1 assured ROD BLAGOJEVICH that Contributor 1 would be good for the donation because Lobbyist 1 “got in his face.” [my emphasis]

It’s worth noting, too, that the government had a wiretap on Monk’s cellphone (in addition to those on Blago), suggesting he’s also a close focus of the investigation, or he’s cooperating.

Federal authorities had an additional, previously undisclosed wiretap in their investigation of Gov. Blagojevich — on the cellular telephone of someone in the governor’s inner circle.

A new prosecution court filing indicates that, in November, authorities tapped the cell phone of "Lobbyist 1" — identified by the Chicago Sun-Times as Lon Monk, a longtime friend and college classmate of Blagojevich who was the governor’s first-term chief of staff.

Since this wiretap wasn’t put into place until November 2008, Burris’ conversations with Monk pertaining to the Senate seat would presumably not have been taped.

Fitz was trying to release wiretaps pertaining to a scheme between Blago and Monk

Most interesting of all, however, is the fact that the wiretaps Fitz was trying to disclose to the impeachment committee pertain to a scheme involving Blago and Monk–the horse racing scheme described above.

After careful deliberation, the government applies for authorization to disclose a limited number of intercepted communications in redacted form. Although many relevant communications were intercepted, the government believes that, on balance, it is appropriate to seek the disclosure of four intercepted calls, in redacted form, to the Committee, and that disclosure of the calls by themselves would not interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation. These calls bear on a discrete episode of criminal conduct alleged in the complaint affidavit, specifically at Paragraph 68(e), and the calls are evidence of a criminal offense that the government was authorized to monitor under the wiretap order.

Now, I’ve been wracking my brain to figure out why Fitz decided to try to release these four intercepts to the impeachment committee out of all of the intercepts to choose from. There are several possible reasons. This episode–more than any of the others described in the complaint–pertains to something that involves the legislature. In addition, since Blago signed the law in question on December 15, the episode may have more closure than the others described in the complaint.

But there is something else I noticed.

Fitz first mentioned trying to get the impeachment committee intercepts on December 22.  But he didn’t propose releasing these specific intercepts until December 29–the  day after (we know from Burris’ testimony) Burris accepted Blago’s offer for the seat (Blago announced the appointment two days later, on December 30). 

That’s almost certainly just a coincidence. But I do find it notable that Fitz believed he had closure on a central allegation involving Monk just as the Burris appointment was finalized.

As I said, I think this is coincidental and not causal. But I do think it means that Burris’ conversation(s) with Monk might turn out to be more embarrassing than he let on yesterday.

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

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

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

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

Discuss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When it became clear that Nixon would be impeached, he had the good sense to step down. Not so Blago, who vowed today to remain governor in spite of the 114-1 vote in the IL House in favor of impeaching him today.

In a historic vote, the Illinois House has impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich, directing the Senate to put the state’s 40th chief executive on trial with the goal of removing him from office.

The vote by the House was 114-1 and marks the first time in the state’s 190-year history that a governor has been impeached, despite Illinois’ longstanding reputation for political corruption.

Rep. Milt Patterson (D-Chicago) was the lone vote against impeaching the governor. Patterson, from Chicago’s Southwest Side, said after the roll call that he didn’t feel it was his job to vote to impeach the governor. He declined comment on whether he approved of the job Blagojevich is doing.

A Blagojevich spokesman said the governor will not resign. A 2 p.m. news conference with the governor is scheduled for the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.

Then again, resignation is the one chit that Blago has to use with Fitz, so it’s no surprise he won’t resign … yet.

Next up, a trial in the IL Senate.

graphic by twolf

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

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

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

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

Holder stiffed prosecutors, FBI case agents and victims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m with Josh. I’m not sure an expert in complex financial instruments is really what Detroit needs in an auto czar.

Democrats tell ABC News successful private equity investor Steve Rattner of the investment firm Quadrangle Group has emerged as President-elect Barack Obama’s leading candidate to be "car czar."

Known for brokering investment media deals, Rattner began his career as a reporter with the New York Times before leaving for the greener pastures of Wall Street. There, he rose quickly at places like Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, and Lazard Frères. Mr. Rattner is highly regarded for his financial acumen — so highly that a year ago, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg put his fortune — estimated to be worth as much as $13 billion — in Rattner’s hands.

Here’s the best part–someone who will fit in the Mid-Western culture of Detroit perfectly.

In Autumn of the Moguls author Michael Wolff described Rattner as "very smooth" with a mien of formality, reserve, efficiency, and soft-spokenness. "He is a kind of perfect museum-board member," Wolff wrote.

I remember the first time I got taken to a girlie bar in Thailand to watch Formula One with colleagues; I felt like I had finally lost my auto industry virginity (and, since you asked, I was the only Anglo woman in the bar and the only one not working). I wonder how Mr. Museum-Board Member likes titty bars?

I wonder if Mr. Museum-Board Member even drives his own car? 

Though in the end, I suppose I shouldn’t complain. Usually when people give the kind of huge money that Rattner has, they get to be Ambassador to Paris. Rattner? He’s contemplating the privilege of serving as Ambassador to the Rust Belt.

On CSPAN now.

Burris is doing terribly in his testimony before the Blago impeachment Committee.

He was asked whether he talked to Lon Monk about the Senate seat. He said yes. Lon Monk is Lobbyist 1 in the Complaint, the guy who Fitz has also taped, not least in the horse-racing venture that Fitz was willing to release to the impeachment committee.

And now Durkin, the Republican ranking member on the committee, has noted that a $1.2 million donor (Telephone USA Investments/Joseph Stroud) to Burris has only given to one other politician: Blago. Burris and his lawyer are now trying to back out of answering details about this loan. Burris justgave a non-answer about whether or not the loan was "forgiven"–he basically said he had no way of repaying it, though he didn’t say the loan had been repaid.

Back on Lon Monk: "As lobbyists, we see how we can help each other."

Lots of questions from Republicans about whether or not he has been making promises not to run in 2010.

Rut roh. Now the Republicans are bitching that the draft report was released this morning.

"Those of us downstate often see more clearly because there’s not as much airpollution as there is in Chicago."

Asking about Burris’ partner talking with Patti Blago about employment gig.  Burris says he knows nothing about it.

Eddy: Why was the Governor’s criminal defense attorney calling you about the seat?

Genson: He’s not the criminal defense attorney.

Eddy: When Adams called you, in what capacity?

Burris: Adams is a good friend of my son, I helped raise him to some degree. I treated it as being counsel to governor.

Eddy: I’ve seen Adams sit in this committee as defense counsel of governor. Nothing relating to criminal complaint relating to appointment at all?

Davis: Will you get Blago’s security clearance back?

Burris: I don’t know what authority I would have. It’s something that would come to my attention–I’d check with Durbin.

Rose: "Designee Burris."

Now discussing Burris’ December 08 presser to bid for the seat.

Tracy: The 1.2 million campaign donation: what kind of business?

B: He owns TV stations.

Tracy: Does he have any contracts with the state of IL.

I see him socially.

Tracy: Is it understood it will never be repaid. 

B It has never come up since I lost the primary in 02.

Tracy: Do you recognize your appointment not under idea circumstances? What I’m trying to establish, I believe that you have qualification. What we have to consider is people of state of IL.

Bellock: Did you mean it when you assured the people of IL that Blago would not appoint?

Genson: I didn’t assure anyone.

Bellock: To hear that Adams came back to request that you have that appointment, seems highly irregular. People were assured appointment would not be made. No matter who made that statement, in testimony today, it seems highly irregular statement made and two weeks later Adams come forward.

Burris: No knowledge.