Weeds, For Mark Ambinder
I will leave it to those with much finer senses of snark than me to slam that crappy reporting of the NYT.
But this post from Mark Ambinder got my weed whacker out of whack, so I wanted to point out a few details for Ambinder, who is usually not so sloppy.
First, Ambinder crowns the guy who turned in Blago’s Senate seat sale as the most powerful guy around.
The most powerful person in Illinois politics is not David Axelrod. Not Valerie Jarrett. Not either the Daleys. Not either of the Madigans. Not Patrick Fitzgerald. It’s the person who dropped a dime on Rod Blagojevich, and it’s all the people who have information that Fitzgerald might be interested in. Someone dropped a dime on the Senate seat matter. Someone got fed up with the pettiness and went to the U.S. Attorney
Given the timeline, that "most powerful person in Illinois" appears to have been an FBI agent, listening to wiretaps placed at least a week before the "pettiness" in question began. I’m all in favor of celebrating the FBI’s work on this case. But it doesn’t mean that FBI agent is the most powerful woman in the room right now.
Then there’s this muddle.
Note: Fitzgerald didn’t seem to say, or didn’t say at all, that having a full and public accounting from the Obama team about their Blago contacts would damage his investigation. Randal Samborn — am I wrong? Greg Craig? In fact, whereas, in the Valerie Plame investigation, President Bush may have been tangentially involved, or at least had an inkling that subordinates of his were involved, Obama does not have the same constraints. There is no legal reason why he can’t comment, speculate, or engage in idle rumors on this whole turn of events. This isn’t to suggest that Obama should make off-the-cuff remarks about this or not take it seriously… it’s just that there doesn’t seem to be the same (veneer of a) legal justification for not doing so.
Mind you, I certainly agree that it would behoove Obama to get further out in front of this than he has thus far done. The Axe/Rahm backtracking on what they’ve said (which I’ll return to in a later post) is only feeding the nutters who want to blow this up. If I had my way as a partisan Democrat, Obama would come out today with a list of what conversations his advisors had with Blago on what dates–and summaries of those conversation–as well as a description of what the follow-up to those conversations were.
That said, I think Ambinder stumbles here on several counts.
First of all, Bush was far more than tangentially involved in the Plame leak. At the very least, he expressed his concerns about the Wilson allegations the day that OVP started intensifying oppo research on the Wilsons. According to Libby, he authorized the leak of whatever it was that Cheney ordered Libby to leak to Judy Miller (which turned out to include Plame’s identity). And during discussions of what classified materials to leak that week, Stephen Hadley said that Bush was comfortable with the plan.
Now, if Bush (and Cheney) really did remain silent on the Plame leak, that would sort of prove Ambinder’s point. But of course, they both said things publicly at key times (backing off calls to fire anyone involved, claiming Cheney had the authority to declassify what got leaked to Judy, buttering up Libby just after he was indicted) and then there are the conversations Libby and Cheney had about Libby’s cover story. So the pose of remaining silent on the investigation was largely that–a pose, an attempt to avoid obstruction charges themselves, an attempt to avoid saying anything really incriminating.
That said, given the prior example of the Plame case, I’m not sure we can safely say that Obama has no reason to be silent about contacts between his team and Blago. We’ve already got one instance where–as he did in the Plame case–Fitz asked a potential witness (or witnesses) he had spoken with not to discuss the case.
In keeping with the U.S. Attorney’s request, we are not sharing information with the media at this time.
So when Ambinder says, "Fitzgerald didn’t seem to say, or didn’t say at all, that having a full and public accounting from the Obama team about their Blago contacts would damage his investigation," I’m not convinced we know that. He didn’t say that to us, certainly, but then, if Fitz were trying to hide what witnesses he had spoken to from Blago and others, do you really think he would tell us?
Which brings us to the leak-non-leak of Rahm Emanuel.
Yesterday morning, after all, someone from Rahm’s general vicinity had leaked that Rahm "tipped the scale" to trigger yesterday’s excitement. By the end of the day, Rahm had denied that–calling such claims, "overzealous reporting." Not, "totally inaccurate reporting," but just "overzealous" reporting.
And, as I pointed out yesterday, one of the things that Blago wanted to talk with "President-Elect Advisor" about in mid-November was Rahm’s now-vacant House seat (though as he is on many things, Blago’s a complete idiot about procedure for replacing a Representative in IL). In fact, three paragraphs pertaining to "President-elect Advisor" were the last chronological descriptions Fitz gave about the sale of the Senate seat, before throwing in details relating to Jesse Jackson Jr. at the end.
112. On November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wanted to be able to call “[President-elect Advisor]” and tell President-elect Advisor that “this has nothing to do with anything else we’re working on but the Governor wants to put together a 501(c)(4)” and “can you guys help him. . . raise 10, 15 million.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wanted “[President-elect Advisor] to get the word today,” and that when “he asks me for the Fifth CD thing I want it to be in his head.” (The reference to the “Fifth CD thing” is believed to relate to a seat in the United States House of Representatives from Illinois’ Fifth Congressional District. Prior intercepted phone conversations indicate that ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others were determining whether ROD BLAGOJEVICH has the power to appoint an interim replacement until a special election for the seat can be held.).
113. Also on November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wants the idea of the 501(c)(4) in President-elect Advisor’s head, but not in connection with the Senate appointment or the congressional seat. Advisor A asked whether the conversation about the 501(c)(4) with President-elect Advisor is connected with anything else. ROD BLAGOJEVICH replied that “it’s unsaid. It’s unsaid.”
114. Later on November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with Advisor A. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Advisor A to call Individual A and have Individual A pitch the idea of the 501(c)(4) to “[President-elect Advisor].” Advisor A said that, “while it’s not said this is a play to put in play other things.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH responded, “correct.” Advisor A asked if this is “because we think there’s still some life in [Senate Candidate 1] potentially?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said, “not so much her, but possibly her. But others.”
There’s no indication that P-EA is Rahm, though given the discussion about Rahm’s seat, it’s probably someone Blago knows locally. Further, there’s no indication that anyone from Blago’s team ever talked with P-EA–just discussions about what they want to say to him. Fitz just ends the narrative right there, without telling us if Advisor A ever met with Individual A and whether Individual A, in turn, met with P-EA.
In fact, Fitz was asked whether Blago’s folks had spoken with Obama or Rahm–only he chose to answer a more narrow question, whether Blago’s folks had ever spoken with Obama.
Q You spoke before about if Senator — you didn’t know — no awareness that Senator or President-elect Barack Obama knew about this. So is it safe to say he has not been briefed? And can you also tell us if any phone calls were made to President-elect Obama that you intercepted, or to Rahm Emanuel?
MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I’m not going to go down anything that’s not in the complaint.
And what I simply said before is, I’m not going to — I have enough trouble speaking for myself. I’m not going to try and speak in the voice of a president or a president-elect.
So I simply pointed out that if you look at the complaint, there’s no allegation that the president-elect — there’s no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving the president-elect or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it. And that’s all I can say. [my emphasis]
He was asked again later about conversations between Obama–or his aides–and Blagojevich, which he also dodged in classic Fitz fashion.
Q Sir, just to be crystal-clear on this point, you’re not aware of any conversation, then, that took place between the governor and any member of Barack Obama’s transition team at all?
MR. FITZGERALD: And what I simply said is you can read the complaint. I’m not going to sit here with a 76-page complaint and parse through it. You know, that’s all we’re alleging. And I’m just — I’m not going to start going down and saying, "Did anyone ever talk to anyone?" You can read what we allege in the complaint. It’s pretty detailed. Look in the 76 pages, and if you don’t see it, it’s not there.
Which, if you read that 76-page indictment complaint, you see there’s absolutely no reference to any conversation with the President-elect. But there is a reference to a potential conversation with the President-elect’s advisor.
None of that, of course, is definitive (as, I’m sure, Fitz intends it to remain).
But it all suggests the very real possibility that Fitz has had discussions with the President-Elect Advisor in question, and doesn’t want us–or, especially, Blago–to know that, or to know what was discussed at that meeting.
I’d love for Obama to come clean with real details about who, from his team, talked to Blago, and in particular, whether President-Elect Advisor ever talked to Blago’s Advisors.
But I get the feeling we’re not going to learn that just yet.
I want to know what caused Axelrod to misspeak about Obama having discussions with Blago. There is also an article being flogged by the wingnuts by a Quincy, IL tv news person reporting that Obama and Blago met to discuss the Senate seat, but the article has been removed from the tv station’s website.
It seems awfully sloppy for someone of Axelrod’s experience.
I don’t think it was sloppy at all. I think it was using Obama in the metonymic sense, to stand for his team.
Who knew that such metaphors would be trouble in just 3 short weeks?
Can I just say how awesome it is to come across the word “metonymic” in a blog comment?
Websters:
Ooo, I love this kind of Sherlock Holmesian “Dog that didn’t bark” analysis. Nice job of careful reading, EW!
Bob in HI
Ditto.
But unlike Bush and Cheney, Blago failed to be in control of the FBI that could investigate him, and the DoJ that could bring him to justice. A most unfortunate oversight for Blago and his missus. Silly man.
But this post from Mark Ambinder got my weed whacker out of whack, so I wanted to point out a few details for Ambinder, who is usually not so sloppy.
Maybe you are trying to be diplomatic, but Ambinder is awful. He writes like Drudgico is his hero.
Thanks ew.
digg
Matt Cooper on the Fitzmachine…
http://www.motherjones.com/moj…..erald.html
OT – EW, did you know that the Miami Herald has borrowed your “pixie dust” phrase without attribution?
(My bold)
Yeah, but they’re not using it in the sense created by EW, are they? Try Googling Pixie Dust sometime, and see what you get. Seems the University of Pittsburgh makes it, and lots of people talk about it, in different ways.
Bob in HI
I’ve been telling you that Ambinder’s brain short-circuited during the Presidential campaign. The stress of trying to justify the McCain campaign’s action turned his brain to tapioca pudding. Now his blog is all mush.
I’m curious about what Obama meant last Sunday when Brokaw asked how he felt about Caroline Kennedy as Senator from NY. He responded that he respected Kennedy hugely, but that he wasn’t getting involved in NY politics because he had enough problems with politics in Illinois.
Maybe he meant that he was being contacted by people in Blago’s office about things Blago wanted …(nudge…nudge)..and whom.Obama wanted in the job (wink, wink).
Note that the calls which Blago references where he was offered only “congratulations” for a Senate appointment acceptable to the Obama camp…these were in taps made AFTER those intial contacts. So why not produce the real killer…the tape with the Obama advisor? One is an actual OFFER, the offer is just secondary evidence.
I would suss that this suggests that whoever that Obama official was might have squealed, which enabled the search warrant.
Poor schmuck Ambinder doesn’t even have a place for blog comments, and so probably is as oblivious of having strayed into the Pherfessor’s anatomy class as he is of all the signs pointing at Bush’s complicity.
BTW Ms EW – I left a response to yours on the last thread.
Oh, and Fearless Leader, one observation – which you, unfortunately, share having made with the Amblivious one:
There’s not Indictment here – not yet at least, and on the Senate seat sale, maybe not ever.
And again, for the record [?]: as to what Fitz is referring to as “the Complaint”, the 76 pager:
It:
[a] is not at all the equivalent of an indictment,
[b] has an entirely different purpose, and
[c] as it appears, is not technically “a complaint”, nonetheless
[d] does contain the rational basis for the announcing of more than one “complaint”
[e] including the two charges articulated in “the Complaint” associated with the 76-page Affidavit, yet
[f] also includes much which is only peripherally or tangentially related to the “the Complaint”.
I must seem like such an old fuddy duddy making these distinctions; but I think they’re important to intelligent discourse.
Eh feck. And I’ve been maintaining that distinction so well for the last two days. Caught me.
FWIW, as I answered in the past thread, I think the first charge pertains to the three conspiracy attempts: pay to play, Trib, and Senate seat. But the evidence he pressents as supporting the third part pertains only to the Obama/SEIU stuff. Which suggests to me there’s some reason (closely related to the subject of this post, I’d wager) why Fitz was willing to stake his complaint on that stuff, but not the stuff pertaining to JJJ.
In other words, he has more evidence than he’s given (though clearly he gave enough for the Illinois leg to start impeachment), particularly as it relates to the stuff about the Senate seat.
Thanks for this, but please explain in more detail. I asked earlier about the difference between a complaint and an indictment, but you are providing better detail.
If it’s not the same as an indictment, why does the only question seem to be what size necktie to hang him with?
What is the next step, legally, that is supposed to happen with a “complaint” like this?
Bob in HI
There is a strong bias deriving from the Constitution in favor of indictments flowing only from grand jury proceeding – some have even referred to it as a constitutional imperative.
Regardless, the grand jury indictment process these days is far, far from absolute, either as to spirit or form. For starters, state, county and municipal courts throughout the country have responded to a strong motive not to have to submit to a grand jury every case of speeding, open liquor in a vehicle, walking about with a loaded firearm and the safety off, damaging a parking meter with a full flying karate kick, expectorating into the pedestrian boulevard, etc etc etc.
And over time, the responses to that understandable motivation have been stretched and kneaded and pulled and torn and stretched more than dough in a pizza parlor, to the point where its probably fair to say that grand jury indictments comprise far more the exception than the rule, certainly in most of the English-speaking world, and today even in its last bastion in the U.S.
Bear in mind that there are situations, many in fact, in which the grand jury ‘requirement’ is deemed fulfilled by the barest of submissions: a member of the investigating team could appear before the grand jury, be put under oath to tell the truth, and proceed to recite in more-or-less ’summary detail’ the state of the investigation – whereupon the d.a. or state or federal government prosecuting attorney may invite the grand jury to consider passing down one or more charges which flow logically from the facts recited to conviction, depending on the credibility of the witnesses referred to and reserving to the trial or petit jury whatever defence or defences that do not flow self-evidently from the description of the condition of the investigation. My point is that the decreasing use of grand jury proceedings may represent a drastic departure from the Constitution, but its not as if we’re really losing much if anything, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing, except to achieve some very particular good things which other countries have been able to achieve by other means anyway.
There are also situations where the need to preserve evidence is so great it’s not feasible to convene a grand jury to do so. That would include situations where the investigation is proceeding on a long-term plan to submit evidence to the grand jury when there’s enough known to likely encompass everything likely to or suspected of being involved, and all of a sudden, ’something’ comes up which puts strictly adhering to that plan at odds with the exigencies – which is what the ol’ smeller suggests here. [I should note that feds have made clear their intention to submit to some sort of pre-trial hearing; I’ve heard the term “grand jury” mentioned, but that can’t be right.]
When for whatever reason the prosecuting authority decides to proceed by ‘complaint’, then that complaint goes to a pre-trial or preliminary hearing, which often proceeds in a manner that is virtually indistinguishable from the ‘pro forma’ grand jury I described above. You may recall that the OJ Simpson case proceeded this way, with an arrest on a complaint, then preliminary hearing being conducted over a few days, then an indictment being filed from that hearing on that complaint, and thereafter a trial jury being selected and the trial itself taking place over a somewhat more protracted period of time.
Speaking from under my defending attorney hat, the preliminary hearing process is at least superficially more open and fair, in the sense that the person accused of the crime is a participant, but generally only when the prosecution decides or is practically forced to call the most interesting and controversial witnesses, because then, unlike with the grand jury process, the defence gets a chance to see how those witnesses give their evidence.
But, despite what gets said by ‘open government-open court’ types, very often I’m pleased, even thrilled on my clients behalf, to find the prosecution has proceeded by grand jury, because more often than not that means the investigating team has decided for some reason – sometimes having to do with their not being sure about what happened, sometimes having to do with an up front lack of confidence in their witnesses – and all kinds of things can be pulled out the prosecution with the assistance of a sympathetic trial judge the defence might never get hold of otherwise. There’s some risk that all our whining and complaining about ‘Star Chambers’ and ’secret courts’ and ‘ham sandwiches’ can be actually abused, or appear to be so – remember the Libby trial and the lengthy ‘grey mail’ hearing? – but even when a trial judge denies defense some material that in all rationality ought to have been produced that often sets up such an obviously successful appeal that either a useful plea bargain get offered or you get to tell your client to sit back and relax watch the big rehearsal unfold.
[Bear in mind that – and maybe its just me – quite often the dear person who has been accused of the crime has made it clear to me that he’s done something – not necessarily the something in the charges, but something – that speaking objectively tends to make the additional time of incarceration pending successful appeal somewhat more tolerable.]
Speaking from under my prosecuting attorney’s hat, there can be an awful lot of value in a well-tuned grand jury, on which I would refer again to the case of Libby by way of example.
So why proceed by complaint in the case of Blago? Well, for one thing, there may actually be some concern with him being a flight risk. I’m not suggesting this be taken lightly: we haven’t seen anything like all he said on the wires, and from what little we have seen, he and the little woman are quite a pair of lulus. You may recall that Fitz’ office prosecuted Conrad Black, and flight risk was the biggest focus on the prosecution right up until he left for the jailhouse. Anyway, to deal with a current flight risk, you can’t very well wait for an indictment that may come months down the line, during which the prime target is going to learn about his exposure and you’ll be stuck with nothing to keep him in place.
Especially when you’re about to execute a search warrant on his political playhouse.
Obviously there’s lots of other reasons, but I hope that’s enough to deal with your question.
I wonder how arm’s length replacement is in polite cloakroomese, though surely it is far from selling plums on eBay like SenToobz’ airmachine, say. I have yet to talk to the folks who do that for a living, and, notably, I believe they refrain from bloviation about that sort of deep strategy. As for the metonymy, most comments in threads appear to have that sort of linkability. The affy parses, I agree, though, having been through the dotchartBinder’s on the earlier Fitz case, in a different ’state’, online, I have waited to read into this yet, sorry. My sense is BObama is only slightly laconic, while thinking miles ahead. And R’s have a grudge from 1960 in IL. I googled Rosty, and only found some distraught smiles about employee payroll.
I’m thinking that someone from Blagojevich’s team called Rahm, and tried to open the door. Emmanuel gets a bad feeling, knowing that Fitzgerald is after Blago, and the paranoia takes over. He calls Fitzgerald, and pushes him on the Senator issue. That leaks just a touch, and Emmanuel has to walk it back.
Something like that.
Did you see mine and Ian’s points about Wrigley, btw? Is it unusual for something like the Cubbies to be excluded from a BK filing?
Okay, here is why Obama did not drop the dime.
Why did Obama resign his Senate seat so precipitously? Why not wait until January? Surely his vote would have been useful about now to block a filibuster on important bailouts. And as long as he was still a Senator, Blago could not appoint anyone. With the seat now vacant he can.
So, if Obama knew the trouble Blago could cause, then staying in the Senate could block an appointment until Blago is impeached. As it stands there is real danger that Blago does not appoint himself, but Alan Keyes.
Good luck with only 50 (including Weaslemann) instead of 51 Dems blocking an appointment. They way I read it, it takes 2/3 of the Senate to reject an appointment (Reid is wrong). So now you need to convince 17 Republicans to remove a GOP appointed Senator.
So forget about a pick up in Maine by appointing Stowe to the cabinent. That is no longer in the works, if you want GOP help with Illinois.
It does cast Obama’s resignation of the seat in a somewhat interesting light. At the time, the reason given, I don’t know if it was by Obama/his staff or the media, was that getting an Ilinois senator in there quickly would give that person seniority over the rest of the incoming class. Does resignation of the seat suggest Obama has no inside knowledge, or inside knowledge? Maybe it suggests nothing.
Alan Keyes? Not sure where that’s coming from….