IMO, Blago’s been playing his whole post-arrest period about as well as could be expected, up to and including making the Senate Majority Leader look like an amateur. But today’s latest move may well backfire.

Blago’s lawyers just filed (in a motion they tried to keep sealed) to get Fitz dismissed from his case.

Lawyers for Gov. Rod Blagojevich have filed a sealed motion to remove U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald and his assistants from prosecution of the case against the governor, a federal judge disclosed today.

U.S. District Chief Judge James Holderman ordered the defense today to file that motion publicly.

After today’s court session, Sheldon Sorosky, a Blagojevich lawyer, said the defense wanted Fitzgerald’s removed "because of the statements made in the announcement of the arrest of Gov. Blagojevich."

Sorosky was asked if the defense believed Fitzgerald used inflammatory language in the announcement. "The motion speaks for itself," Sorosky said.

Mind you, I’m sure Blago can find all manner of discredited shill who will argue that Fitzgerald spoke improperly at his press conference announcing Blago’s arrest. But that doesn’t change the fact that Blago is now asking for something his alleged confederates tried to do over four years ago–get Fitz fired (or at least removed from this case). The same Rezko trial witnesses that form the foundation of Fitz’s case against Blago, after all, also testified that the gang tried to get Fitz fired.

In a hearing before court began, prosecutors said they hoped to call Ali Ata, the former Blagojevich administration official who pleaded guilty to corruption yesterday, to the stand.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Carrie Hamilton said she believed Ata would testify to conversations Ata had with his political patron, Rezko, about working to pull strings to kill the criminal investigation into Rezko and others when it was in its early stages in 2004.

"[Ata] had conversations with Mr. Rezko about the fact that Mr. Kjellander was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald removed," Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve.

The one member of the pay-to-play gang who has not yet publicly admitted they tried to take Fitz out–Rezko–is, by all appearances–getting more cooperative by the day.

 So while maybe I’m misreading how this latest play will go over, I gotta say the optics of it stinks. Blago’s alleged accomplices have been gunning for Fitz for years. And now, post-arrest, the first thing he does is try once more to get Fitz fired?

Here. The Trib’s overview is here.

I think the head cold is sufficiently at bay so I can read along with you.

One thing to note as you read: how the Committee has used (in limited fashion) Fitz’ evidence from the complaint. Note they’re focusing on the flashy stuff: Wrigley Field and the Senate seat. The pay to play stuff has been lumped in with testimony from the Rezko and other trials.

Also note a few of these items are things that are reasonably laudable–better services–but which  Blago tried to accomplish through illegal means.

And finally, note the Executive Ethics Commission Report, starting on page 53. This is basically about Blago breaking all sorts of hiring rules. I raise it for you to keep in mind as Dems start cheerleading this impeachment. The charge is something that Bush is equally guilty of–but there was no squawk of impeachment for him.

Starting on page 60, there is a list of all the evidence they’ve used thus far. You can access almost all of those at this website.

I’m still trying to sort through the conflicting stories on contacts Rahm Emanuel had with Rod Blagojevich and his crowd. One of two things is going on:

1. Rahm has been less than forthcoming in describing his contacts with Blagojevich and his minions.

AND/OR

2. There has been a sustained effort to misrepresent Rahm’s contacts with the governor.

Note the AND/OR there: I believe both are true, to a point. Which is why I’m still trying to wade through these details.

Did Rahm call Blago in December?

The most recent conflicting data point is this one, included in a Sun-Times story reporting on Reid’s contact with Blago:

Before [Reid’s and Menendez’s conversations with Blago on December 3], Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Blagojevich to tell him to expect to hear from Senate leadership because they were pushing against Jackson and others, according to statements the governor made to others.

This would seem to conflict with Rahm’s representation to Obama’s team, which asserted that he had only spoken directly to Blago one or two times–both in early November.

Mr. Emanuel had one or two telephone calls with Governor Blagojevich. Those conversations occurred between November 6 and November 8, 2008.

There are a couple of ways to resolve this contradiction, neither one of them very satisfying. First, it is possible (though highly improbable) that Rahm told Blago on November 8 that Senate leadership would call him (though note that–at that point–Schumer had not yet announced his resignation as DSCC Chair), and they simply didn’t get around to calling him until December. This is unlikely for two reasons: Obama’s team hadn’t even given Blago their "list" yet, so it seems unlikely that Reid and Menendez or Schumer were already lobbying heavily. And then there’s the unrealistic delay of almost a month, during a period when it was never clear whether Blago was about to appoint someone in the near future or not.

The other way to resolve the contradiction is via the dodge I pointed out earlier. The Obama report does not claim to be a comprehensive on all contacts between Obama’s team and Blago’s team; it is limited to conversations relating to Obama’s successor.

On December 11, 2008, the President-Elect asked the White House Counsel-designate to determine whether there had been any staff contacts or communications – and the nature of any such contacts of communications – between the transition and Governor Blagojevich and his office relating to the selection of the President-Elect’s successor in the United States Senate.

The fact that Rahm did not know whether he had one or two conversations with Blago directly about the Senate seat suggests there were other conversations on different subjects. After all, presumbaly Rahm could check his cell phone records to find out the total number of calls with Blago, so his uncertainty on number suggests an uncertainty about the content of the calls, not an uncertainty about the number of calls. 

Thus, given the way this report is scoped narrowly to cover only contacts about the Senate seat, it’s possible that as Rahm was discussing other issues with Blago–such as the special election to replace him–Rahm mentioned that Harry Reid would call, without much else. How a smart guy like Rahm could imagine that that didn’t pertain to Obama’s seat and therefore rationalize leaving it off the report on contacts, since Reid wouldn’t much care about Rahm’s seat, I don’t know. 

Also, add in the possibility that the Sun-Times reference to Rahm calling Blago was the same metonymy that Axelrod got in trouble for earlier: representing a contact with a Blago representative as a contact with Blago. Given the possibility that John Wyma was preparing to speak to Rahm after November 13, as suggested by the complaint, this opens up other ways for a Rahm contact with Blago’s team–but not Blago–sometime closer to the Reid and Menendez phone calls on December 3.

Did Blago make up a December Rahm call, either in December or more recently?

But there is another possibility: that Rahm never actually called. To understand why, consider the structure of this statement:

Before their contacts, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Blagojevich to tell him to expect to hear from Senate leadership because they were pushing against Jackson and others, according to statements the governor made to others.

This claim is based not on Blago’s assertion to the reporters who wrote this story, but on assertions Blago "made to others," with no qualification as to when Blago made the statements or what his potential motivations might have been. Which, as I suggested yesterday, could mean one of several things.

• Blago was taped around about December 3 saying, factually, "Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call" and somehow those tape contents found their way to the Sun-Times.
• Blago told people around about December 3 that "Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call" and those people are now sharing that information with the Sun-Times (note, these people could just as easily be JJJ associates as Blago associates).
• Blago told people, after he was arrested but before Obama released his report, that "Back in December Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call" and those people are now sharing it with the Sun-Times (these people would be more likely to be Blago associates, but could still be JJJ associates).
• Blago has directed people to tell the Sun-Times in the last week or so that "back in December, Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call" and those people are now doing Blago’s bidding. 

Given that Blago now knows tapes exist but did not before December 3 and given that Blago saw Rahm’s version of affairs on December 23 with the rest of us, some of these are more likely than others (that is, it would be stupid for him to claim, now, that Rahm called on December 3 if he did not call at all, since that would be easily disproven). And, depending on the timing, Blago’s motivation for doing this would be different; inventing a Rahm call in December might have served to heighten the urgency of donations for JJJ’s associations, whereas doing so in the last week would fit Blago’s race-baiting strategy to get Burris appointed. And anything Blago has said in the last month may be intended for potential jurors, as LabDancer reminded me yesterday.

Again, I don’t know which of these many scenarios is true. But there are at least two other major discrepancies between Rahm’s claims about his contacts and what has been reported about his contacts. There’s the question of whether or not Rahm included JJJ and Cheryle Jackson on the list of candidates Obama found acceptable for the seat, as I laid out yesterday.  And there are the reports that Rahm had 21 contacts with Blago’s team (which might easily be explained by the Obama report dodge if there were 15 contacts with Blago’s team on subjects unrelated to the Senate seat). 

Which is why I come back to that AND/OR distinction. There appears to be some contest over what Rahm said when, with multiple players playing to get their side out. I find that curious.

I’m one of those who believes that Blago made no monetary deal with Roland Burris in exchange for the Senate seat (which is not to say that Blago didn’t make it very clear that Burris would have to stop calling on Blago to resign).

But IL’s legislative impeachment committee appears to want more assurances from Burris that that is the case. They subpoenaed Burris on Saturday, to appear before the committee on Wednesday.

The group has also issued a subpoena that was served Saturday on Roland Burris, the governor’s controversial choice to fill Illinois’ vacant U.S. Senate seat. The order compels Burris to testify Wednesday.

Given that Burris will be in DC today and tomorrow trying to be seated as Senator, I’d say he’s got a busy few days.

The Sun-Times has updated its story on Reid’s calls to Rod Blagojevich with this statement from Harry Reid:

Gov. Blagojevich appears to be trying to distract attention from his daunting legal problems and damaged credibility by distorting information about private phone calls between himself and other public officials. It is regrettable and reprehensible.

Gov. Blagojevich’s efforts to try to tarnish others while the cloud of suspicion continues to grow over him are shameful, as are his efforts to further betray the public trust and sow seeds of division. As each day passes it becomes increasingly clear that Gov. Blagojevich is not fit to lead, and he should resign.

I will not allow his corruption charges or his antics to distract me from leading the Senate, to drive a wedge in our party or to obscure the facts. [my emphasis]

(Reid just accused Blago of lying about it on MTP, as well.)

I’m fascinated not only by Reid’s decision to respond to what he apparently believes is a Blago leak, but by his accusation that Blago is lying. That’s because there are now three different versions about whether or not Jesse Jackson Jr. was acceptable to Obama and Reid.

Recall that, several weeks ago, someone leaked to the Trib details of Rahm’s discussions with Blago about "acceptable" candidates for the Senate seat. That list rather notably did not include JJJ.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be "acceptable" to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.

In fact, except for Jarrett, that list did not include any African-American candidates.

But that’s not who Rahm says was on the list.

Between the time that Mr. Emanuel decided to accept the position of Chief of Staff in the White House and December 8, 2008, Mr. Emanuel had about four telephone conversations with John Harris, Chief of Staff to the Governor, on the subject of the Senate seat. In these conversations, Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Harris discussed the merits of potential candidates and the strategic benefit that each candidate would bring to the Senate seat. After Ms. Jarrett removed herself from consideration, Mr. Emanuel – with the authorization of the President-Elect – gave Mr. Harris the names of four individuals whom the President-Elect considered to be highly qualified: Dan Hynes, Tammy Duckworth, Congresswoman Schakowsky and Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. In later telephone conversations, Mr. Emanuel – also with the President-Elect’s approval – presented other names of qualified candidates to Mr. Harris including Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Ms. Cheryle Jackson. [my emphasis]

The Trib’s sources say JJJ and Cheryle Jackson were not on the list, Rahm says they were.

Now look at the context for Reid’s purported list from the Sun-Times story.

Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero confirmed that Reid (D-Nev.) and U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) — the new chief of the Senate Democratic political operation — each called Blagojevich’s campaign office separately Dec. 3. Sources believe that at least portions of the phone conversations are on tape.

Before their contacts, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Blagojevich to tell him to expect to hear from Senate leadership because they were pushing against Jackson and others, according to statements the governor made to others.

The Reid-Menendez calls came a day before a Dec. 4 conversation overheard on government wiretaps where Blagojevich says he "was getting ‘a lot of pressure’ not to appoint Candidate 5." Candidate 5 is Jackson.

The story paints a chronology in which Rahm calls Blago some time on or before December 3, then Reid and Menendez call Blago on December 3, and finally, Blago has the following conversation on December 4.

ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that Senate Candidate 5 was very much a realistic candidate for the open Senate seat, but that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was getting “a lot of pressure” not to appoint Senate Candidate 5. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that ROD BLAGOJEVICH had a problem with Senate Candidate 5 just promising to help ROD BLAGOJEVICH because ROD BLAGOJEVICH had a prior bad experience with Senate Candidate 5 not keeping his word. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that if Senate Candidate 5 is going to be chosen to fill the Senate seat “some of this stuffs gotta start happening now . . .right now. . . and we gotta see it. You understand?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A that “you gotta be careful how you express that and assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?”

The Sun-Times doesn’t note it, but the claim that Blago was getting "a lot of pressure" not to appoint JJJ was part of his pitch to one of JJJ’s donors for a quid pro quo pertaining to JJJ’s appointment to the seat. Remember, too, that Blago was demonstrably leaking information about who was and was not a leading candidate in an attempt to drum up urgency among potential players in the Senate seat sale, as when he leaked the "news" that Madigan was rising in consideration to Michael Sneed. This raises the possibility that Blago’s claim that he was getting a lot of pressure was a lie, intended (like the Madigan leak) to increase the sense of urgency among JJJ’s donors who–remarkably enough–had a fund-raiser scheduled for that weekend. The complaint does not say whether Blago really was getting a lot of pressure or not, but Blago also said, twice, on December 4 that he was elevating JJJ in consideration because he thought he could get money for the seat.

On December 4, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke to Advisor B and informed Advisor B that he was giving Senate Candidate 5 greater consideration for the Senate seat because, among other reasons, if ROD BLAGOJEVICH ran for re-election Senate Candidate 5 would “raise[] money” for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, although ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he might “get some (money) up front, maybe” from Senate Candidate 5 to insure Senate Candidate 5 kept his promise about raising money for ROD BLAGOJEVICH.

[snip]

Later on December 4, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke to Fundraiser A. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated he was “elevating” Senate Candidate 5 on the list of candidates for the open Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided ROD BLAGOJEVICH with something “tangible up front.”

In other words, Blago was claiming he was getting a lot of pressure, but that would have been before he even gave JJJ serious consideration. Blago may or may not have been pressured, but his claim is tied directly to negotiations that allegedly involved the sale of the Senate seat for $1.5 million.

Also note the discrepancy between the Sun-Times’ latest version of discussions–in which Rahm purportedly spoke directly to Blago around December 3–and the Obama report, which states that Rahm only spoke to Blago about the Senate seat twice (at most), both times in early November. That Sun-Times version, though, is sourced to "statements the governor made to others," which seems to parallel Blago’s claims that he was getting a lot of pressure–which may or may not have been invented.

Now, frankly, I don’t know what to make of these three contradictory stories. Blago’s sources appear to claim that neither Obama nor Reid supported a JJJ candidacy. Obama’s version clearly states he did. And Reid won’t tell his version (saying he doesn’t remember it), but he states clearly that Blago’s version is false. 

But I find it really telling that, first of all, Blago is shamelessly race-baiting in his efforts to successfully appoint Burris to the Senate seat, and, at the same time, he claims neither Obama nor Reid supported African-Americans for the Senate seat (except for Jarrett). At the same time, the question of whether or not Blago really was being pressured not to appoint JJJ may inflect the interpretation of the recorded conversations about Blago’s intent to appoint JJJ to the Senate seat.

Blago might be telling the truth.

Or, he might be inventing this story to both support his larger attempts to make everyone else (including Obama?) look like racists, and to explain away comments he made in early December that would otherwise seriously incriminate him.

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.