Posts

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 →

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 →

Burris Doing VERY Badly Before the Impeachment Committee

/in /by

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 Read more →

Roland Burris Subpoenaed

/in /by

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.

Burris: Why Not Withhold Committee Assignments?

/in /by

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.