Posts

The HJC Agreement with Rove and Miers

/61 Comments/in /by

Here’s the written agreement between HJC and the Bush Administration for Rove and Miers’ testimony. Some highlights:

The House Judiciary Committee (the “Committee”) will interview Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, but there will be no additional interviewees / witnesses (subject to the one exception [possibly William Kelley, who has reportedly been subpoenaed in the probe on this]). 

On this, I wonder whether there isn’t someone else in the White House who was the real fulcrum of the effort? Rove’s denials have always been couched to say he didn’t talk to DOJ, but leaving open the possibility that someone else did (at least on these issues). I wonder if they’ve included this requirement to protect that person?

The scope of the interviews will be limited to: (1) facts relating to the evaluation of, decision to dismiss, or decision to replace the former U.S. Attorneys in question; the alleged decisions to retain certain U.S. Attorneys; and any allegations of selective prosecution related thereto; and (2) testimony or representations made by Department of Justice officials to Congress on the U.S. Attorneys matter. For the period beginning on March 9, 2007 (the date of the Committee’s first written demand for information from the White House), interviews will not include the content of conversations involving: (i) Mr. Rove and members of the White House Counsel’s office; or (ii) Ms. Miers and members of the White House Counsel’s office. In the case of Mr. Rove, the interview also will include facts relating to the prosecution of Alabama governor Don Siegelman.

I’ve asked whether bullet (1) includes the alleged attempt to fire Pat Fitz–will let you know if I hear.

As to the rest–they’ve clearly carved out the White House Counsel Office, presumably to protect Attorney-Client privilege. Bill Clinton and his blow job, of course, enjoyed no such privilege.

As to official privileges, counsel will direct witnesses not to respond to questions only when questions relate to communications to or from the President or when questions are outside the scope of questioning set forth above.

Regarding the David Iglesias firing, of course, there are allegations that Bush intervened directly to give the order to fire him. Read more →

Share this entry

Monday, 9AM, Roland Burris Is Still Senator

/33 Comments/in /by

I’ve lost my touch.

It used to be I’d go away for a week and Karl Rove or Alberto Gonzales would resign. Here we are, Monday morning after I’ve been gone a week (thanks to bmaz for really superb work last week!), and Roland Burris is still Senator.

Maybe if I do a recap of Burris’ week, though, and point out the looming holes in his story, then it’ll hasten his departure.

Fitz Joins the Fun

Remember how, in his press conference trying to explain how he forgot to mention his talks with RobBlago and John Harris, Burris couldn’t decide whether he had or had not been contacted by Fitz’ people regarding his negotiations on buying a Senate seat?

That question has now been solved, as Burris spent some time with federal investigators on Saturday.

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris was interviewed by federal authorities for several hours Saturday as part of the ongoing corruption investigation into charges that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to sell a Senate seat for personal or political profit, sources familiar with the talks said.

Burris’ interview, which had been delayed for weeks, took place at his attorney’s offices in downtown Chicago. He has been informed he is not a target of the probe, the sources said.

Several details of this are interesting: what was responsible for the "weeks" delay in Burris’ testimony? Did he have to straighten out his story to the legislature first (though he did not do that with the State Supreme Court), so as to attempt to prevent perjury charges? Or did Fitz just want to make sure they had a complete catalog of the times Burris spoke to Blago’s people–including the multiple phone calls to John Harris that Burris still hasn’t ‘fessed to? Perhaps, too, Fitz wanted to wait until after the FBI started collecting information on Patti Blago’s tenure at the Chicago Christian Industrial League, since that was one way (through Burris’ partner Fred Lebed, who is on the board of the charity) that Burris could have influenced Blago in ways other than fundraising directly. Or, maybe, Burris was negotiating the terms on which he would be very forthcoming to Fitz?

Note that Burris’ secret sources (otherwise known as his attorney, I’m guessing) have gone to the Robert Luskin school of prosecutor-talk. Burris "has been informed he is not a target" of the probe. But did anyone mention anything about him being a subject?

Read more →

Share this entry

Burris’ Campaign for the Senate Seat

/39 Comments/in /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more →

Share this entry

Three Data Points on Blagojevich

/in /by

While some of us were busy in DC meeting Roland Burris this week, there were three data points of note in the Blagojevich scandal.

Genson Gone

First and foremost, Blago defense attorney Edward Genson quit his criminal trial.

Powerhouse lawyer Edward Genson, who most recently helped singer R. Kelly beat a child-pornography rap, said he will be "formally off" Blagojevich’s criminal case "when the next court hearing comes along.

"I wish him luck, and I hope he wins," Genson said. 

Now this is different from Genson’s earlier refusal to defend Blago in his impeachment trial. In that action, Genson was joined by co-counsels Sam Adam Sr. and Jr. This decision, however, appears to stem from disagreements with the Adams.

Genson, sources said, had been frustrated over a lack of communication with other attorneys for Blagojevich. That dissension boiled over Thursday when lawyer Sam Adam Sr. and his son Sam Adam Jr. said they planned to file a lawsuit to block the governor’s upcoming Senate impeachment trial. Genson had said there was no chance a lawsuit would be filed.

The Genson announcement is interesting for a couple of other reasons. Recall that Sam Adam Jr. was the one who brokered the Burris appointment–even after Genson had announced that Blago would not appoint anyone for the seat. When asked by the legislative committee whether having one’s defense attorney negotiate the appointment of a senate seat described in the criminal complaint tainted that appointment, Genson insisted that Sam Adam Jr. was not a part of the defense team.

And here we are, just a few weeks later, and Adam is a part of the team and Genson is not.

But the split here may represent larger disagreements about the proper course for Blago. If Genson fought unsuccessfully to prevent Blago from appointing anyone, and if he is now implicitly accepting the legal basis for the impeachment (or at least the inadvisability of challenging its legality), it is possible his defense strategy more closely resembled what a sane person’s would be: for Blago resign without appointing to the seat before an impeachment and get the best deal from Fitz you can. And, as a reminder, Blago’s team (or at least his team prior to Genson quitting) readily agreed to a 90 day delay of Blago’s indictment. Not that his new, Genson-less team could change their mind or would. Read more →

Share this entry

The Method to Blagojevich's Sam Adam's Madness

/in /by

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. Read more →

Share this entry

Lon Monk and Roland Burris

/in /by

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, Read more →

Share this entry

Five Years After Pay-to-Play Gang Tried to Get Fitz Fired, Blagojevich Tries Again

/in /by

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 Read more →

Share this entry

Fitzgerald: You Can’t Have Witnesses, But You Can Have 4 Conversations

/121 Comments/in /by

I’m about to open Christmas presents, so I’ll have to put off any real comment on the news that Fitz is doing the legal work to release a very select group of intercepts to the Blagojevich impeachment committee. From his filing, it looks like he’s willing to release just four conversations.

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. Under separate cover and under seal, the government provides to this Court for its ex parte, in camera review, both a set of the full audio recordings of these four calls (Exhibit 3) and a set of proposed redacted recordings (Exhibit 4) omitting portions of the conversations not material to the episode described in Paragraph 68(e) of the complaint affidavit. 

It will not surprise you in the least that Paragraph 68(e) is one of the least sexy in the entire complaint.

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. Read more →

Share this entry

The Squabble over Subpoenas in Springfield

/69 Comments/in /by

When Blagojevich’s lawyer threatened to subpoena Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett last week, it made a lot of sense. By causing the Obama team ongoing distraction, it would have allowed Blago to exact a price from Illinois Democrats aiming to oust him. And it would allow Blago’s lawyer, Edward Genson, to see some of the evidence not shown in Obama’s selective report last week (for example, the content of other conversations between Valerie Jarrett and Tom Balanoff, one of which may be referenced in the complaint yet unmentioned in the Obama report).

Sadly for Blago, though, he’s going to be unable to force Rahm and Jarrett to testify. Fitz sent the legislative committee a letter requesting that Rahm, Jarrett, Jesse Jackson Jr., and Nils Larsen (the Financial Advisor advising Sam Zell on the Wrigley Field stuff) not be subpoenaed.

You have inquired whether prospective testimony by Valerie Jarrett, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., Congressman Rahm Emanuel, and Nils Larsen before the Special Investigative Committee would interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation into the activities of Governor Rod Blagojevich and others. Our understanding is that counsel for Governor Blagojevich has asked the Committee to issue subpoenas requiring the testimony of those individuals on Monday, December 29, 2008.

Consistent with our letter of December 22, 2008, we believe that testimony before your Committee by any witness, including the four named above, concerning the subject matter of the ongoing criminal investigation, could significantly compromise that investigation. The impact of such testimony on the criminal investigation would be the same regardless of whether a witness is called by the Committee or by Governor Blagojevich. Accordingly, we ask that the Committee refrain from issuing subpoenas for testimony by those four individuals (or others) which would overlap with the subject matter of the pending criminal investigation.

The committee has made it clear it will comply with Fitz’s request. 

Now, I think it would be a mistake to read too much into Fitz’s request. After all, he’s unlikely to want to pick and choose (for example, if he said "you can subpoena JJJ but not Larsen"), as that selection, by itself, would signal which witnesses he wanted to withhold.  And Fitz is notoriously reluctant to show his cards before his time. 

Also note Fitz’s wording. This was misrepresented in some of the coverage of this, suggesting that Fitz had asked the committee not to subpoena those "mentioned" in the complaint; Read more →

Share this entry

Dick’s Talking Points, Two

/46 Comments/in /by

When Libby was first asked about any discussions he had with Cheney in response to Joe Wilson’s op-ed, he first claimed he had not discussed the op-ed until after the Novak column (though with his aborted discussion of a "conver–"sation, he may have been thinking of the July 9 conversation he had with Novak and subsequently hid).

I don’t recall that conversation until after the, until after the Novak piece. I don’t recall it during this week of July 6. I recall it after the Novak conver — after the Novak article appeared I recall it , and I recall being asked by the Vice President early on, you know, about this envoy, you know, who is it and — but I don’t recall that, early on he asked about it in connection with the wife, although he may well have given the note that I took.

Q. And so your recollection is that he wrote on July — that you discussed with the Vice President, did his wife send him on a junket? As a response to the July 14th Novak column that said, he was sent because his wife sent him and she works at the CIA?

A. I don’t recall discussing it –yes, I don’t recall discussing it in connection with when this article first appeared. I recall it later.

Then, when Fitz points out the utter absurdity of discussing with Cheney, speculatively, that Plame was purportedly involved in sending her husband, after Novak had already reported that fact directly, Libby shifts, and tries to claim they talked about it after July 10 when–he claimed–Tim Russert had told him of Plame’s identity.

Q. And are you telling us under oath that from July 6th to July 14th you never discussed with Vice President Cheney whether Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA?

A. No, no, I’m not saying that. On July 10 or 11 I learned, I thought anew, that the wife — that, that reporters I lwere telling us that the wife worked at the CIA. And I may have had a conversation then with the Vice President either late on the 11th or on the 12th in which I relayed that reporters were saying that.

Basically, Libby was trying to date the notations Cheney had made on Wilson’s op-ed ("Or did his wife send him on a junket?") Read more →

Share this entry