The Blagojevich Contacts: Only 5-6 Contacts with Rahm on the Senate Seat, But the Report Does Not Cover Rahm’s Seat
The Obama team has released its report of contacts between the Transition Team and Governor Blagojevich.
With regards to the question of whether or not anyone in Obama’s team talked with Blago about Obama’s replacement, the contacts are innocuous: the only Transition Team member who had any contacts was Rahm, who had "one or two" with Blago and four with John Harris. (According to Greg Craig, Rahm can’t remember whether it was one or two contacts with Blago.)
But curiously, the Obama team very narrowly crafted the question to cover only conversations about Obama’s replacement!!
I arranged for transition staff to provide accounts of any contacts that you or they may have had with Governor Blagojevich or his office in which the subject of your successor came up.
This, even though one of Blago’s conversations references "the 5th CD thing," suggesting an imminent conversation between Blago and Rahm about the special election to replace Rahm, White House Counsel to-be Greg Craig didn’t ask about such conversations.
In addition, on a conference call about the report, Craig stated that he hadn’t known about the Fox report that Rahm had tipped Fitzgerald off to Blago conversations; that seems like a worthwhile question to ask Rahm, don’t you think?
I will try to get some clarification on whether Craig even asked Rahm whether he had talked to Blago about his own replacement; but in the meantime, you can rest assured that Obama was not chumming it up with Blago directly.
Clarification:
As WO and MD point out, Rahm’s House seat does come up:
Soon after he decided to accept the President-Elect’s offer to serve as Chief of Staff in the White House, Mr. Emanuel placed a call to the Governor to give him a heads up that he was taking the Chief of Staff’s position in the White House, and to advise him that he would be resigning his seat in the House of Representatives. They spoke about Mr. Emanuel’s House seat, when he would be resigning and potential candidates to replace him.
My complaint about this report is that it is either amateur in its execution or deliberate in its narrowness, but they apparently never asked Rahm, "How many conversations did you have with Blago and Co about your OWN seat, in addition to the 5-6 that pertained to the Senate seat?" That seems like a really important question, not least because Blago was clearly intending to start further discussions about things of value for Rahm’s seat.
“… does not cover Rahm’s seat.” Gosh, you’re being polite tonight, EW.
I gotta get a life. When I read that one thought was if you picked up the distinction and here we are, EW voodoo, scary. I’m not a fan of Rahm and still think he’s being too clever here and hope that he’s been forthright with Obama, he’s more trouble than he’s worth IMO but I don’t live and work in the Village or appreciate his value on getting things done. Happy Holidays!
I found this bit to be interesting:
That makes it sound like the primary topic of conversation between the Gov. and the CoS-designate was about the “5th CD thing”.
Right. And add in that he doesn’t know whether he had one or two conversaitons with BLago, I wonder whether on the second conversation, he doesn’t know whether the Senate seat came up, or whether they talked exclusively about the House seat.
Of course, technically, neither Emanuel nor Blagojevich have anything to do with who replaces Emanuel in the House. The ‘when’ of Emanuel’s resignation would affect the timing of the special election, but that’s about all.
Emanuel’s conversations with Harris are more relevant to the criminal charges against Harris and Blagojevich, but if they are as portrayed in the report, I don’t see how this is going to be anything more than an embarrassment to Obama and crew.
Technically, though not in fact.
Which is the concern. Rahm has clearly stated preferences for who will replace him and appears to be gaming the special election process.
Given that, it is jsut as likely that any conversations he had about his election would be just as damning as conversations about Obama’s seat–not least because he was free-lancing on the Senate seat without talking to Obama.
This from Lynn Sweet’s blog on the Chicago Sun-Times, re: the “one or two phone calls” between Rahm and Blago….
http://blogs.suntimes.com/swee…..gibbs.html
“Obama’s Greg Craig, Robert Gibbs briefing on Blagojevich internal report. Transcript
[snip]
Q Okay. And the other question: In the section on Rahm, you said Mr. Emanuel had one or two telephone calls with Governor Blagojevich.
MR. CRAIG (?): Right.
Q Is there a reason you can’t be more specific whether it was more than one?
MR. CRAIG (?): There is a reason, and that is that Rahm Emanuel says he had one or two, and he’s not confident whether it was just one or whether there was another one as well.
Q Okay.
MR. CRAIG (?): So we’re accurately reflecting — and this is what — by the way, what the U.S. attorney got also from Rahm — we’re accurately reflecting the facts as Rahm knows them to be.
But he also — the significant thing is that if there were two, it doesn’t make any difference to the result that I’m most interested in, as to whether or not there was anything inappropriate that was discussed, because Mr. Emanuel’s very clear as to what the topics of the discussion were, and he is very clear that there was no discussion of a Senate — of a seat in the Cabinet, there was no discussion of a 501(c)(4) or a private-sector position or any other personal benefit to the governor in exchange for the Senate appointment. He’s very clear on that.
Well yes…and no. *g*
On page 2 in the Rahm Emanuel section, there is this:
(My bold)
Does not cover.
If Rahm were completely responsive to the quesiton, he could be hiding 17 conversations about the House seat.
The only thing Obama’s willing to vouch for is conversations about the Senate seat.
That’s because you are using the normal definition of “cover”.
It seems there is another definition used by certain members of a certain profession whereby a mere “mention” is sufficient to their definition of “cover”.
No aspersion was cast in the making of this comment. That should “cover” my ass. *g*
You also need to note, as reported on TPM, that Fitz interviewed Obama, Jarrett, and one or two others, last week, I think.
On top of my already pointing out that it was clear Fitz had spoken with them?
Yeah, I get your point. But I think it more important to hit the stuff that no one seems to get about this and let those catching up catch up.
You wonder when folks knew about being wired around Blagomir, and how it shaped the tone of the conversations. Seems like the Count of Illinois would be the type of guy that no one would suspect?
Hard to believe anyone in the know would have said squat to him for the last several years.
Had the very same reaction. Minimalism never goes over very well and in many cases, likely to include this one, it lends itself to charges of “cover”-up.
And for the legal eagles present, a question: Is it true the legal profession charges by the word count?
This is ridiculous.
Without the “in which the subject of your successor came up” restriction, the number of conversations to be potentially covered is vast, since you’d be asking for any time anyone on Obama’s staff, many of whom are Illinois-based, talked to anyone on the governor’s staff about anything at all.
And as others have said, Blago has no say about the special election to replace Rahm, so any such conversations are irrelevant.
This is just a game, and one that Obama should not play. There are plenty of things to attack Obama for — Rick Warren is just the latest — but if there’s anything real that’s being hidden, Fitzgerald’s investigation will flush it out eventually.
Right.
Except that the last entry on the Blago-Obama conversations has Blago talking about a quid pro quo pertaining to Rahm’s seat.
I guess you’re okay with that? They haven’t even covered what is mentioned in the complaint. That’s really stupid.
I agree with EW here. The Obama Team should have explicitly addressed Rahm’s 5th CD discussions with the Blagojevich and company, and whether there was any quid pro quo for candidate support.
Greg Craig, future White House Counsel, could have very easily included an explicit statement that no quid pro quo for candidate support discussions by Rahm or anyone on the Obama Team for Rahm’s seat.
My point, and I believe EW’s also, is if there is nothing there, say so!
Seems simple to me, but what do I know. *g*
“My point, and I believe EW’s also, is if there is nothing there, say so!”
But if there is no reasonable way that they might think that there could be a quid pro quo issue there, maybe they didn’t discuss it because it seemed farfetched that anyone would raise it. ASFAI can see, Blago has no ability to influence who gets elected for the House seat…except perhaps in a “spite” sense. Perhaps he intended to endorse someone that would be torpedoed by his endorsement
But can anyone give me an idea exactly what Blago could offer in relation to the seat? Or what anyone would give him? In addition, if he was offering this as some sort of “chit” in the package of things in relation to the Senate seat then it would fall into the set of conversations that related TO the Senate Seat.
Does the quoted complaint stuff in my comment # 46 answer your questions?
Not really. It seems to me that the “Fifth CD thing” was the reason for the phone call, but that Blagojevich wanted the aide to prep Rahm for something else he wanted to mention in that conversation. Once again, related to the Senate seat.
Thus he could separate the “quid” (info about “helping me raise money for a 501(c)4″) with a renewed discussion about the Senate seat (the pro quo). Even though the rationale was to talk about the 5th CD seat (election timing, whether or not there may be members of Blagojevich’s Administration running for it, etc.) he likely was going to tangentially indicate that he was now leaning toward JJJ for the Senate seat, but was willing to listen to “good reasons” not to. IMO the “5th CD thing” relates to the date of that election…not to anything that Blago could offer to Rahm in exchange for that seat. Because he couldn’t really.
I’m no expert on Illinois or even Chicago politics, but I’m knowledgable enought to know that “machines” there are typically very important to candidates’ chances of victory.
One way the “5th CD thing” could have gone down was for Blago, via one or more of the “machines”, to actively work against any Rahm-supported candidate.
As the previous owner of that “5th CD thing”, Blago surely knew who and how the wheels were greased.
I agree that to Blagojevich, Obama’s Senate seat was the bigger plum. But that does not negate the idea that Blago wouldn’t squeeze some juice from the smaller “5th CD” plum.
Here’s the Rahm stuff:
I think this suggests that Blago was delusional–trying to make more out of the House seat than he had in his shand.
That said, it’s fairly well established by now that Rahm wants a placeholder in his spot so he can return ot the House in one or two terms and, eventually, have a shot at the Speaker position. So it’s clear that Blago believed he could help Rahm get that, and that Blago believed RAhm valued that (which he does).
Though I will say this–delusional as this is, there are two reasons to take it seriously. First, bc Blago clearly sees it as a ploy, part of a bigger game. From the legal standpoint, BLAGO took this seriously, whether or not Rahm did. So why not reveal it?
The other thing, though, is the suspicion that Rahm wants to get away with hiding his desire to put a placeholder in place and then return (triumphantly!!!) to the House to take the 3rd most powerful position in the Country.
He’s entitled to his desire. But my suspicion is that he’s hiding a perfectly legal (alberit slimy and embarrassing) ploy to hide his real goals with the COS position and the House position. And, in doing so, he’s putting the Obama team at risk, bc they’re not coming clean. That’s stupid–it’s putting the ADministration’s goal secondary to Rahm’s personal goals, and I find it reprehensible, if true.
And because
Maybe I’m missing something here. But just how much “value” did Prince Blag the Impaler have in Emanuels seat? The departure left two years on his second term with more than 180 days before the next election. Under Illinois law, that means a special election must be held to replace him. There isn’t even an interim appointment. The seat remains vacant until the election.
I have a hard time thinking that Prince Blag could have very much to “sell” on this seat. The former Congressman who held the seat (Emanuel), Mayor Daley, and a host of others would have a much more influential impact on endorsement in what looks to be a crowded field. In fact, Blag’s endorsement might be the kiss of death. About the only influence that the Governor might have is in regards to the timing of the special election. And now he might have to consider whether to consolidate that election with one for the vacant Senate seat, too.
And if he’s going to jail (or resigns) then his last act might be to roll all three of those vacant positions into a trifecta election.
But can someone tell me how he might be trying to “sell” Emanuels seat?
It is not amateurish. It is narrow in its scope and it should be.
In matters such as this you answer only the question[s] posed. Period.
To do otherwise, in a setting such as this, is damn foolish.
Oh great!!!
Chief of Staff is mentioned in a criminal complaint. You do a report on whether COS has any implication in criminal complaint. But you don’t ask about the matter in which COS is mentioned in criminal complaint.
Really? That’s your brilliant idea of allaying any worries about that? Duh. Rahm was mentioned in the complaint. They’ve answered questions about stuff that were not mentioned, but not about the stuff that was.
Really stupid work, Obama team.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion as to what is stupid and what isn’t.
The “duh” stuff really isn’t necessary. The Obama team simply has a different opinion [shared by me]than you. In the practice of law that is not unusual; particularly, where public relations and law are involved and the interest of each is different.
Um, this was not an examination under oath which is the standard you are treating it as. This is a man who is about to ascend to the Presidency, he has a freaking duty to not treat shit as if he is in some crappy litigation.
Crikey I would normally agree with the theory of shutting the fuck up; but even I can’t say that here.
The question is whether Obama or his staffers are implicated in this.
THey pointedly didn’t answer that question, choosing to answer a different question.
Not even sure they answered the different question.
Well, which is it, then oldguy? Legal or PR?
Lawyers too often tend to confuse them.
EW’s point here is that they’ve used weasel words. You seem to be saying “I would have used the same weasel words.” Since our goal is not to defend weasel words, but to figure out what went on, we don’t really care much about legal strategy or PR strategy, except to the degree that you have to know how people distort things in order to get at the underlying reality.
Bottom line, when we see weasel words, our BS detectors tell us there’s something more going on. This is something new — in the dying world of modern journalism, what “sources” say is everything, and you can never get past it, so weasel words make the paper, and suspicions lie dormant. In the world of the blogs, weasel words are like hors d’oeuvres, and your client may be dinner.
Who knows if there’s anything behind them, but the weasel words are definitely keeping this issue alive for a little while longer.
Obama, of course, is in Hawaii trying to get up-and-down in less than 3 from off the green – – which means this production was largely that of Gregcraig or Graigcreg, making your point salient – & thus this goes deeper:
To the extent that the campaign provides one opportunity to judge how an administration will behave, and the v-p pick another, and the cabinet selection process another, and the picks another, and the response of the president-in-waiting’s team to issues of the day another, and, peculiar to taking over from the Bush-Cheney cabal, the CONDUCT of the president-in-waiting’s team to CHALLENGES, this is clearly a fumble and a definite fail.
Given his previous “F” on Obama’s vote on the FISA immunizations, I wonder what possible basis exists for us to expect graigcraiggregcraig’s performance to improve?
I’ll say this for GraigCreg.
He is unwilling to put himself at risk. He said, twice, in the presser that he had no knoweldge of something (written communication and Rahm’s involvement in tipping Fitz). Which leads me to believe that he knows he’s been given a very narrow scope here, and clear direction to keep to it.
Thanks–well said.
OT Marcy,
Did you see Murray Waas’ latest? mcjoan reporting.
OT Alert:
Hello all, I’ll come back and read later. We’re headed out to the Pointsettia Bowl, originally created to pit teams like SDSU and Navy in a (very) low-ranked bowl game.
But tonight, it’s #9 TCU vs #11 Boise State. This should be a great game, the merry tricksters of BSU vs the #2 Defense in the NCAA of TCU.
Against Oklahoma (Freep where are you) TCU allowed (only) 34 points and something like 30 yards rushing on 30 carries.
How did such a lowly bowl game end up with such a great matchup?
My, my, I’ve been away longer that I thought. Are the tin foil hats the usual pointed variety, or are we adding ear covers for winter?
Sell a house seat? Phhhhht. Fitz accused Blago of selling a Senate seat, remember? He wasn’t selling it to the guys who just had it. Blago was selling it to people who could be buyers. You guys ever spend any time in the business world?
One of Obama’s advisers is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, the head of the Democratic National Committee. Has anyone checked his phone logs?
Actually no. The outgoing head of the Democratic National Committee is Howard Dean. His brother has been the head of Democracy Now.
Rahm Emanuel is the Congressman from Illinois who is an adviser to PEBO and slated to be the WH Chief of Staff. HIS brother is a Hollywood agent who is suppoed to be the model for the Jeremy Piven charater in the HBO series Entourage
not true.
jim dean, howard’s brother, is chair of DFA ( Democracy for America).
democracy now is part of the pacific radio network which is operated by the pacifica foundation. funding is via donations and maybe foundation grants (pacifica doesn’t take corporate or gov. $). i think the way it is run is that a local board is elected by the listener sponsors at each of the five stations and they elect the national board.
And I was thinking of DFA while typing Democracy Now. D’oh!
But mainly I was intent on correcting that Rahm and his brother had NOTHING to do with the DNC (other than maybe to obstruct it)
Thanks ew.
digg
My guess is that they didn’t include more on the “5th thing” for a combination of three reasons.
1) Fitz’s complaint and press conference allege the attempt to sell Obama’s Senate seat, not Rahm’s. There has been (at least as of yet) no allegation concerning the congressional seat. So if Fitz hasn’t alleged it…
2) Either it didn’t happen or Fitz is not ready to unveil it yet. We know he only gives away what he has to, so if something is going on in that regard he has probably asked them to say as little as possible (we know he asked them to delay the report on the Senate seat even with the public allegation).
4) The press hasn’t been harping on this angle, which is probably for good reason when you consider that Blago doesn’t appoint anyone to the seat. Why bring up another topic for the press to chew on during the holidays when no one is in town to answer questions (we know that Rahm probably spent more time on this matter with Blago then the senate seat so the press will want details from Rahm on what was said).
We will probably be able to tell which reasons when Obama or Gibbs gives the next formal press conference.
You mean in spite of the fact taht Fitz describes Blago acknowledging he wanted to make a pay to play offer to Rahm pertaining to his seat amounts to this not being mentioned in the complaint? Really? Because if Fitz said (which he did): “When Blago asked [I think] his bro to talk to John Wyma about this, Blago agreed that this was part of a pay to play scheme” that sure seems to me like Fitz HAS alleged something about Rahm’s seat.
Sorry: Fitz said that Blago agreed that talking to Rahm was a play to put other things in play. Not precisely a pay to play. But a play.
You certainly know the details and I am not questioning you for wondering why it wasn’t addressed, I am simply putting out some suggestions as to why. I am not questioning that Blago THOUGHT he could leverage something (at least at some point), I am just wondering if Fitz knows that there wasn’t anything there. He can’t appoint someone, so how much clout did he have? A quid pro quo requires something of value to be given in return.
I am not saying it is impossible, I am just saying that Fitz might be thinking that building a case around a power Blago didn’t have is a losing move legally. Obama’s team is probably thinking leave it alone if possible (less drama the better). If Fitz does have a case we will find out. I still think he wants Blago to keep guessing as to what he knows. Obama did not volunteer at any point that he, Rahm and Jarrett were going to be interviewed, so the idea that they are still trying to give out as little as possible is realistic to me.
Right.
But I would just suggest two things.
1) Based on the complaint, we have no reason to believe Fitz believes this wasn’t relevant, since he included that detail.
2) That said, Fitz deliberately says he hasn’t included everything. So there’s no reason to conclude that he has included everything he thinks is valuable. In fact, I’d bet lots of money he deliberately hid a lot of details about the pay-to-play donation scheme, bc that implicates cooperating witnesses. Which of course has nothing to do with Rahm, but I raise it only to point out that the greatest substance of his case against Blago is almost certainly deliberately not here.
No debate on this. I am sure that Fitz’s best ammunition is not in the public domain. In fact, that supports my view that it could be part of the “smoking gun” which Fitz doesn’t want him to know about just yet.
I just find it hard to believe that if Rahm has been interviewed by Fitz at this point and he were really “playing” with Blago over the seat (without cooperating with Fitz) that they would be playing it out this way. They know it will come out if Fitz was grilling him and he lied, and Fitz could go public at any moment so it seems like there must be more to it. The evasion seems intentional. The reason for it may or may not be so obvious right now.
My guess is that this is legally immaculate but politically very very dirty.
If people start to look at this, they’ll start to focus on Rahm’s decision–already–to return to the House for a run for Speaker. If they do that, then Rahm’s treatment of Nancy is suspect, not to mention the rest of Congress. And his promise to be interested in Obama’s goals is questionable.
That’s my best guess: that Obama’s making a REALLY stupid ploy in order to protect someone who is valuable–but not critical (and ethically, not consistent–to Obama’s Administration. So I read this as a gross overvaluation of Rahm’s value and with it an avoidable ethical lapse.
Interesting….
>I am just wondering if Fitz knows that there wasn’t anything there.
Again, the problem to me is that as EW points out, Fitz did raise the issue. He didn’t have to, but he did. And Team Obama didn’t answer it.
If we were in a court, the implication would be that it wasn’t really germane. But we’re not. In public discussion, when someone carefully avoids countering an allegation, that in itself is evidence that there’s something to the allegation.
We know they have been asked by Fitzgerald to be careful what they disclose to the public. When someone carefully avoids a topic they have been instructed to avoid by a USA, should we be surprised? It’s not direct evidence of anything.
I think they did a fine job of answering the other question. And frankly, from the sounds of people on teh phone, they haven’t noticed this other question, yet.
They did ask whether there were written documents and Craig said “I know of none.”
You might be right. I concede that. What I do not agree with is your opinion that what Obama’s team did was objectively stupid.
I think good lawyers, who have practiced in this area of the law and are privy to more information than the posters here, could have a different opinion. That opinion might prove incorrect as this matter plays out, but it isn’t stupid.
While I do agree with EW, bmaz and others on the less than stellar performance in this “report”, let me jump over to your side with a hypothetical:
Suppose that backing/supporting/campaigning for Rahm’s soon to be vacant seat in the 5th CD did have pay-to-play implications with Blagojevich and company, and further suppose that Fitzgerald had “final” editor approval on the report released by Greg Craig. Might not have Fitz imposed a reporting blackout on that component in the report in order to keep his cards close to his vest?
Again, given that Fitz mentioned the 5th CD soon to be vacancy in his criminal complaint, and did so in this pay-to-play fashion:
(My bold)
It sure seems to me that Fitzgerald believes he can tie Blagojevich to a pay-to-play scheme regarding Rahm’s soon to be vacant 5th CD seat.
Again, perhaps the Obama Team has been forced to keep quiet on this particular aspect because Fitz wants it that way.
All in all, as EW said, I think it is highly interesting why the report by Greg Craig did not address this particular part of the backstory.
And perhaps we all do an injustice on the Obama Team because they are being constrained by a sharp Federal Prosecutor.
So, are we all friends again? *g*
I do think that’s possible, btw. Though unlikely. I don’t think Fitz wants to be more of a political trouble than he is. And this is political trouble.
Well, no matter how one slices it, that report says far too little.
By design? By Fitz constraints? By “no smoke, so no fire”? Fitz knows and he’s not saying…yet.
Yeah, that’s my basic gripe. We waited a week and a half for this incomplete BS? I actually don’t think anything untoward (as distinct from “embarrassing”) happened. But this is an open invitation for people to look further, at least into Rahm’s role.
“Who knows if there’s anything behind them, but the weasel words are definitely keeping this issue alive for a little while longer.”
Maybe in the conversation about the House Seat Rahm used some rather unsavory scatalogical and indecent sexual references – either regarding Blago, his wife, or perhaps a candidate proposed by Blago. Things better left unpublished.
They’re not publishing tapes. So the weasel words will remain precisely where they are anywhere–in Fitz’s hands, potentially to come out in case of a trial.
I’d point out that November 13th is the last date of contacts noted between Blagojevich and Obama’s team in Fitz’s complaint. I’m unsure that there was even any contact related to this “5th CD thing” that ever occurred with Emanuel after this conversation on the 13th. Did Harris or Blagojevich even directly offer up to Rahm the 501(c)4 request that THEY spoke about? If they did it’s not in Fitz’s complaint. And by this time it’s pretty clear Fitz is taping the conversations. Unbless Fitz is holding back some pretty big information, then it seems as if this was a trial balloon that never happened…and the meat of the bribery was directed elsewhere.
I guarantee you, Fitz is holding stuff back–I guarantee you, at a minimum (as I think I said upthread) he’s holding back the guts of his pay-to-play stuff, which is really the meat of his case against Blago; he’s doing it to protect the case and cooperating witnesses, I suspect (that’s all a guess).
That said, I’m trying to emphasize that inclusion in or exclusion from this complaint should not be definitive. Fitz has said, clearly, he left out non-monetary conversations. Likely bc they’re not legally easy to charge.
From a legal standpoint, that makes sense.
But from a political standpoint, from Obama’s perspective, it makes no sense to hide something embarrassing, all bc you want to avoid embarrassment. Political scandals don’t work that way.
From Politico:
(My bold)
Guess Rahm was the only one if what Craig says is accurate.
Raina,
Thanks for the link to the Sun-Times transcripts. I think it helps to keep these conversations grounded, since we do have a tendency to get carried away by our speculation. Would it be worth compiling a basic documents page, both for this and for the other scandals and cases EW tracks?
I’m not volunteering or anything. I know it’s lame, to say, hey, somebody else really ought to do this …
Hopefully someone will notice this (though I think you’re first!) and try to get an answer from the Obama camp. It might just be an oversight. As you say, they did mention that Emanuel discussed his Congressional seat, and they even brought up the 501(c) and all that, which is directly linked to the “5th cd” part of the complaint. Maybe they considered it a blanket denial? And would they be so stupid as to parse words or play games to that extent when they know there are tapes? If they think the media is peeved now…
On a sort of related note, The Hill has noticed that “Rahm is still wearing two hats.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the…..12-22.html
A slow day so, perhaps, there could be some discussions from those of you real thinkers about the report in context of John Dean’s commentary asking (pleading?) Obama for total transparency.