Posts

Gold Bars Luskin: Turdblossom Is Wearing Nothing But a Fig Leaf

/90 Comments/in /by

rovefigsm.jpg

(Graphic by twolf)

There’s a few things really funny (as in smells funny, not funny ha ha) about Rove and Luskin’s identical attacks on Obama’s decision to comply with Fitz’s request that he not reveal the contacts between his transition team and Blago until next Monday.

Here’s Rove:

Rove: And it’s not gonna be a couple of days, last Thursday he said they’d, quote, do it in a few days, now we’re being told it’ll be next week. 

Colmes: That’s because of the prosecutor, Karl, the prosecutor has asked Obama to wait a week.

Rove: Again, first of all, the prosecutor can ask; the President-elect ought to decide what is in his best interest, and saying clearly and candidly to the American people like he should have said ten days ago, "Of course we’re going to be talking to him about who my replacement should be, but if any suggestion was made of a quid pro quo, my people would have said no right from the get-go." I just don’t buy this that the Obama transition operation is resisting giving out this information only because they’re being held back by the prosecutor’s office.

And here’s Luskin.

Robert Luskin, a Washington white-collar defense lawyer who knows Mr. Fitzgerald well, said he doesn’t doubt the prosecutor would have asked that Obama officials keep quiet until his investigation is further along. That is to prevent witnesses from tailoring their stories to what they learn others are saying. But, he said, Mr. Obama and his aides don’t have to comply. They are using the prosecutor as a "fig leaf" to avoid answering questions just now, Mr. Luskin said. They could just as easily have decided that assuring the public about their actions is more important than acceding to the prosecutor’s request.

The Investigations that Weren’t

One really minor gripe is this. The Obama team has–apparently–done an investigation and turned the results over to Fitz. Not a radical thought, I know. But consider:

Remember the Abramoff scandal–the one that should have shown Abramoff sending emails via Susan Ralston’s secret email to Karl Rove? The White House claimed to do an investigation into Abramoff’s ties to the White House. Only, they somehow missed the large number of visits (not to mention close contacts) Abramoff had with Rove and his buddies.  

And how about the Plame outing? Read more →

Jesse Jackson Jr’s Cooperation with Fitz

/35 Comments/in /by

Multiple stories–explicitly sourced to Jesse Jackson Jr’s allies–report that Jesse Jackson started cooperating with Fitz as least as early as earlier this year. Here are some data points on JJJ’s cooperation and other involvement.

He apparently told Fitz earlier this year that in 2003, Blago conditioned a position for JJJ’s wife on a $25,000 donation.

Jackson has been in regular contact with the feds and has told the government that in 2003 Blagojevich denied the congressman’s wife Sandi an appointment as Illinois lottery director because Jackson would not donate $25,000 to the governor’s campaign fund.

Also earlier this year, JJJ told Fitz that he refused to accept Tony Rezko’s condition that the state would support a third airport only if JJJ agreed to let Blago approve the airport board.

The meeting in June of 2006 at a Gold Coast hotel included Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Blagojevich fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko.

The topic was a proposed third airport at Peotone, Jackson’s pet project which needed more state money. Rezko allegedly demanded that the governor be given control of the airport’s board. Jackson refused and state support for the project stopped.

Fitz’s folks called JJJ last Monday night to give him a head’s up that they were arresting Blago and that a reference to him would show up in the complaint. 

Reportedly, last week, both JJJ and his father (who appears not to have been mentioned in the complaint) both retained lawyers.

Also last week, JJJ issued a narrow denial: denying any involvement in pay-to-play, while not denying someone may have made an offer to Blago in his name without his knowledge or support.

I want to make this fact plain: I reject and denounce pay-to- play politics and have no involvement whatsoever in any wrongdoing. I did not initiate or authorize anyone, at any time, to promise anything to Governor Blagojevich on my behalf.

I never sent a message or an emissary to the governor to make an offer, to plead my case, or to propose a deal about a U.S. Senate seat, period.

Also in his denial, JJJ described his sister’s support for what he has done. And in an previously unremarked reference, he described being proud of Illinois in the last 2.5 years.

This morning, I got a text message from my little sister, who told me that she was proud of me. She was proud of what I’ve done for this nation.

Read more →

Fitz on Firing

/54 Comments/in , , /by

In their Questions for the Record submitted after he testified, HJC managed to ask Patrick Fitzgerald one obvious question they didn’t manage to ask when he testified at their hearing on Special Counsels (h/t MadDog). What would have happened–or would happen to John Durham, investigating the torture tapes destruction–if a Special Counsel got fired during the course of the investigation? Actually, in the QFRs Fitzgerald got asked about 5 different versions of the question, only one of which elicited a really useful answer (at least as it might reflect on John Durham’s investigation):

13. If you had been fired as a U.S. Attorney, what impact would that have had on the CIA leak investigation? What impact would that have had on your appointment as Special Counsel?

During my tenure, this question did not present itself. It is not clear to me what the legal implications would have been had I been relieved of command as United States Attorney while serving as Special Counsel. (This might be an issue that should be specifically addressed if there is a delegation of power to a sitting United States Attorney in the future as it is entirely possible that a United States Attorney could be asked to resign after a change in administration.) It would appear that unless the United States Attorney were specifically retained in some other capacit (such as a Special Assistant United States Attorney), he or she could no longer serve as a Special Counsel who was employed by the Department of Justice and whose authority had been delegated by the Attorney General. It would be possible that a new appointment could be made for such a former United States Attorney which would provide that he or she would serve as a Special Counsel from outside the Department of Justice pursuant to the appropriate regulations.

Had I been relieved of command as United States Attorney while conducting the CIA leak investigation, even if a legal basis were established for me to continue as Special Counsel or in some other proper capacity, I would nevertheless have had to determine whether it would be appropriate for me to continue representing the government under all of the circumstances. Read more →