Lon Monk and Roland Burris
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, ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A that he was going to make an upcoming announcement concerning a $1.8 billion project involving the Tollway Authority. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A that Lobbyist 1 was going to approach Highway Contractor 1 to ask for $500,000 for Friends of Blagojevich. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A that, “I could have made a larger announcement but wanted to see how they perform by the end of the year. If they don’t perform, fuck ‘em.” According to Individual A, he/she believed that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was telling Individual A that ROD BLAGOJEVICH expected Highway Contractor 1 to raise $500,000 in contributions to Friends of Blagojevich and that ROD BLAGOJEVICH is willing to commit additional state money to the Tollway project but is waiting to see how much money Highway Contractor 1 raises for Friends of Blagojevich. [my emphasis]
Monk was also supposed to help hit up the Executive of the Children’s Hospital for $50,000 tied to $8 million in funding for the hospital.
On November 12, 2008, at approximately 8:26 p.m., Fundraiser A called ROD BLAGOJEVICH and reported the status of fundraising efforts. During the conversation ROD BLAGOJEVICH instructed Fundraiser A to call Lobbyist 1 the following day and ask Lobbyist 1 what to do about the fact that Hospital Executive 1 is not calling Fundraiser A back and inquire whether it was possible that Individual A had instructed Hospital Executive 1 not to call back.[my emphasis]
And he was centrally involved in efforts to get money from the horse racing industry before Blago signed a bill diverting money from casino revenues to the horse racing industry.
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. The bill, which is believed to be a law which involves directing a percentage of casino revenue to the horse racing industry, is expected to be signed as soon as next week. In a call on December 3, Lobbyist 1 advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH that Lobbyist 1 had a private conversation with Contributor 1 about the contribution (“commitment”) Contributor 1 had not yet made and advised Contributor 1 “look, there is a concern that there is going to be some skittishness if your bill gets signed because of the timeliness of the commitment” and made clear that the contribution “got to be in now.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH commented to Lobbyist 1 “good” and “good job.” In a call the next day, Lobbyist 1 asked ROD BLAGOJEVICH to call Contributor 1 “just to say hello, I’m working on the timing of this thing, but it’s gonna get done.” Lobbyist 1 suggested that it is better for ROD BLAGOJEVICH to make the call personally “from a pressure point of view.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he would call Contributor 1 and indicate that ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted to do an event (fundraiser) downstate “so we can get together and start picking some dates to do a bill signing.” Lobbyist 1 assured ROD BLAGOJEVICH that Contributor 1 would be good for the donation because Lobbyist 1 “got in his face.” [my emphasis]
It’s worth noting, too, that the government had a wiretap on Monk’s cellphone (in addition to those on Blago), suggesting he’s also a close focus of the investigation, or he’s cooperating.
Federal authorities had an additional, previously undisclosed wiretap in their investigation of Gov. Blagojevich — on the cellular telephone of someone in the governor’s inner circle.
A new prosecution court filing indicates that, in November, authorities tapped the cell phone of "Lobbyist 1" — identified by the Chicago Sun-Times as Lon Monk, a longtime friend and college classmate of Blagojevich who was the governor’s first-term chief of staff.
Since this wiretap wasn’t put into place until November 2008, Burris’ conversations with Monk pertaining to the Senate seat would presumably not have been taped.
Fitz was trying to release wiretaps pertaining to a scheme between Blago and Monk
Most interesting of all, however, is the fact that the wiretaps Fitz was trying to disclose to the impeachment committee pertain to a scheme involving Blago and Monk–the horse racing scheme described above.
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.
Now, I’ve been wracking my brain to figure out why Fitz decided to try to release these four intercepts to the impeachment committee out of all of the intercepts to choose from. There are several possible reasons. This episode–more than any of the others described in the complaint–pertains to something that involves the legislature. In addition, since Blago signed the law in question on December 15, the episode may have more closure than the others described in the complaint.
But there is something else I noticed.
Fitz first mentioned trying to get the impeachment committee intercepts on December 22. But he didn’t propose releasing these specific intercepts until December 29–the day after (we know from Burris’ testimony) Burris accepted Blago’s offer for the seat (Blago announced the appointment two days later, on December 30).
That’s almost certainly just a coincidence. But I do find it notable that Fitz believed he had closure on a central allegation involving Monk just as the Burris appointment was finalized.
As I said, I think this is coincidental and not causal. But I do think it means that Burris’ conversation(s) with Monk might turn out to be more embarrassing than he let on yesterday.
OT:Obama to retain key CIA deputies who oversaw the clandestine torture regime, including Steve Kappes. He was the nain deputy to both Tenet and Hayden and he authorized the rendition and torture of Italian cleric Abu Omar. This is incredibly depressing, although not that surprising.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28573323/
Dammit, with this neverending stream of muck, Marcy will never find the time for a Toronto meet-up.
Hi, Petrocelli. Long time no see. And EW: never see (well, not in 3D).
This is just the best detective site ever. And it takes my mind off our own dear leaders, both of whom now (both Conservative and Liberal) are to the right of Obama on the Middle East.
Hiya Skdadl, I meant to come by downtown and share a glass of Holiday Cheer with you but we had tons of company over and …
… rain check ?
Something to encourage Marcy & other Wheelers to come for a Toronto meet-up … “For dinner, customers might expect mussels steamed with Irish whiskey, stobhach caoireola – lamb shank braised in Guinness stout – served with bruitin champ (buttered mashed potatoes) and Irish apple cake with Jameson cream sauce.”
Yes, we will be needing a Cab ! *g*
{{{{Petrocelli}}}}
Oh, I forgot about that!!
Just in time for balmy weather!!
You’re looking to collect on the beers I promised for sending aid to the Big 2.5?
Natch … we’re going to buy you all the drinks you can down … a little birdie told me where to find Guiness Stew, if you’re interested …
May we take from the sudden appearance of the EW-cape that you’re left your cohd id da noz behind in the usual phone booth?
I like what you’re cooking up here. Could Monk-to-Burris-to-MacBlaggo end up the most famous Chi-Town 3 way since Tinkers-to-Evers-to-Chance? [Except with those Cubbies, Evers was the crazy one.]
Hey: What a coincidence that of all the pols in all the joints in the whole wide world, the only two Stout has ever funded are Burris & MacBlaggo? And in the exact same gubernatorial primary of the only party with a chance to win that election?Go figure odds on THAT!
Heavens! Please don’t distract us from the charge made by Blago’s atty that PatFitz has been conducting a vendetta. This ‘coincidence’, as you call it, was merely an optical illusion.
Rabbits and hats to follow shortly.
When he has a minute to spare from fiddling in Rome…
What about Aparicio to Fox to whoever was on first. (White Sox fan from the late 50’s and early 60’s)
Good thread, ‘Wheel. You are the only blog I’ve seen that’s talking about this aspect of Burris’s testimony, which is very close to perjury, at the least. The hair-splitting about Burris not really talking to a “representative” of Blago, but instead, talking to Monk, a friend and former Chief of Staff for Blago (according to what I’m reading) and asking him to tell the governor that he, Burris, would like the seat, is telling… especially when it’s coming from people who are weeping legalistic tears about the “rule of law”. Burris has shown himself to be a blithe spirit, when it comes to doing a 180 on his judgement of Blago, and of lying, when he’s caught doing it.
And that is my point: there is substantial and growing evidence of the kind of person that Burris is, and we have all this jabber about how he HAS to go into the Senate, and right now, to protect the american judicial system.
Two points:
I haven’t seen anyone make the case that the Senate doesn’t have the right to put Burris’s appointment in the Senate Rules Committee.
And no one I’ve asked has even tried to answer the question of how doing that would hurt the U.S. Senate, the american people, or Roland Burris. (I mention him last, because to me, given his letting Blago use him like a baseball bat on the Senate dems, his concerns deserve the least consideration.)
Side jab: CBSNews reports that while the Illinois House was inside impeaching him, MacBlago was outside jogging.
Okay, I got one coming in now … getting clearer … Rome … burning … Nero … fiddling … no, not fiddling: blajogging!
I had the same thought, as soon as I heard it.
Well Obama says Burris is a nice man, after saying no way Jose, then Harry says that all things are on the table, then Blago is impeached. So now it’s mandatory that Burris is seated. He’s a natural fit!
OT – IL Sup Ct refuses to force Sec of State to certify, but also says the appointment was valid under IL law without the certification.
Meanwhile, Durbin reversed course, saying that they wouldn’t take Burris without White’s signature.
And now White has apparently signed a certificate stating that Burris’ appointment is in order (though I’m not sure it’s the certification itself).
Interesting finding. So we seem to have a gap between the IL SecStateAct vs. the US Constitution’s assumption that all incoming Senators will bring certs signed by the their state’s SoS.
And now the freaking Illinois SoS has signed and forwarded his own certificate certifying Burris!
Not sure I understand the difference between “registering” the appointment, and “signing it, unless it’s about 2 documents and the appointment doc takes a co-signature. Nevertheless, I’ve believed for days that this with-holding of White’s signature is (pardon the football reference) a designed play. Without it, Reid had no ground for refusing Burris a seat. This cries out as collusion between White and Reid. I don’t know if it’s clever politics, or a power grab by a Federal official to interfere with the succession process of a state. I can’t help but wonder if this plan was hatched to give the Ill legislature time to do what they’re doing, and if it had the help of input from some short fellow that’s highly knowledgeable about Ill Democratic Party politics.
seems someone was alert and kind enough to share a link a day or two back that showed white had communicated with reid (at reid’s initiation?), but that white had some not so kind words to say about it all. seems he felt used.
geez, this is all reading like the mad queen’s croquet game. is there no end to this rabbit hole?
Thanks for reminding me of that. I had forgotten it while passing that bubble of gas @18. It may be that White needs to distance himself from communicating on the subject, as it seems to this nonlawyer that there is something at least improper about a federal official interfereing with the normal succession of state-selected representatives.
It’s also possible that White, after noting The US Attorney’s revelations of attempts to “sell” the senate seat, decided to act alone to refuse to participate in any appointments made by one so accused. Reid then simply used the moment to take advantage of the situation. But the coincidence of this in timing and consequences is too much for me to accept, pending more info, and what you reminded me of helps in that regard.
Bmaz, check out looseheadprop’s thread over at the Lake. I’m in over my head. I need back-up!
A few threads back the superbeing who runs this outfit pointed out to the fellow I mis-named Stout – he’s actually called Joseph “Joe” Stroud – – who as it happens is in the media biz, as owner of what Senator-blagojenominee Burris testified to yesteday as “TV stations” [plural] – – a racket for which the relevance of the identity of who in particular occupies the Illinois gubernatorial mansion is not to me apparent [not immediately, anyway; is it to others?] – – and that, being in that racket [& by operation of some divine humor], enjoyed the [thoroughly-professional-entirely-above-the-blanket-I’m-sure] services of that litigatin’ lobbyist, Ms Vicki … well, her firm at least.
As I recall, the thrust [as it were] of the Times story conjoining Ms Vicki to this beat-up broken-down corrupt neocon relic of a US senator [name escapes my mind; bmaz may know of him] lay in the several work-related benefits & assorted legs-up, as well as various extracurricular thrills & spills, said senator was implied to have enjoyed [as it were] from his close canoodlings with some number of large media concerns, to the end of increasing their tumescence & disgorging their media offerings into what they saw as virgin demographics.
It does strike me that, for someone in Stroud’s position, the idea of a wrapped-up US Senator in his wallet might bring a level of comfort.
I think there are a number of people involved in this thing that are, as the Brits sometimes say, “too clever by half.” A mad queen’s croquet game, indeed.
Bob in HI
bmaz – Holder confirmation hearing celebrity witness rosters:
For the Fightin’ Obamas:
at defensive tackle, Virginia [Go Hawks!}, former Mister Elizabeth Taylor & US Senator, John Warner
at strong safety, D of C [Go Dismissive Cross-Examiners with Withering Glares!] 3-time Colbert nemesis & not-a-state House Rep, Eleanor Holmes Norton
at quarterback, Democrat, Beltway [Go Establishmentarians!}, former Deputy USAG, Eric H Holder Jr
at guard, Beltway [Go Establishmentarians!}, former FBI director, Louis Freeh
at inside linebacker, Tennessee [Go Cops!], National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury
at left tackle, Maryland [Go Perps!}, President & Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, John Payton
For Snarlin’ Arlens:
TBA
Ms E Wheel –
You wrote: “I’ve been wracking my brain to figure out why Fitz decided to try to release these four intercepts to the impeachment committee out of all of the intercepts to choose from”.
A few thoughts:
First:
There’s not enough out there to be definitive, but one possibility is that all 4 may fit particularly neatly into the terms of the order granting the authority to do the intercepts, or its language [or both], while also serving to retain as much as possible some plausible uncertainty about what else those terms and language might cover, the latter effect extending into the statement about the state of the investigation and the suspicions of the investigators – the stuff that gets presented to the DoJos & to the judge to deal with that pesky probable requirement under the 4th amendment.
Understand, I’m not suggesting necessarily a ‘bait and switch’ at work here – although the fact that law enforcement officials resort to such tactics often enough requires defense attorneys to be aware of the possibility and root around in case there’s some of that present in the case at hand – that’s just Due Diligence 101 for defending attorneys.
What I’m referring to is Fitz & the FBI having to carry on with an investigation that, while its [as it seems here] going up at the ladder in the normal, approved way of the DoJ & FBI on public corruption and corporate shenanigans cases, increasingly more & more folks have the opportunity to become aware of that & act accordingly – by shying away from their normal communications routines, by shutting off contacts with those they might suspect of betraying them or simply being insecure.
The things you noted MacBlago & Friar Lon discussing, for instance, despite the fame or notoriety involved, are all well within the normal grist of the FBI/DoJ mills. When viewed from the perspective of someone not actually paid to be deeply skeptical [and able to do something about it, or try], then, to borrow from a more modern bard [Randy Newman] eyelids gettin’ sleepy – start to droop – well before the stage that your average shlub, starstruck msm “journalist” or chronically light-fingered pol is able to sustain any practical level of working interest. You don’t have to look very far in this MacBlago tragi-comedy to see the typical pattern, and that’s what Fitz et al would not be wishing, and be working not, to disburb.
[I note that this set of expectations, not just superficially plausible but also tested and found generally true over time, have no, or at least significantly less efficacy when it comes to two minority types: [a] sophisticated amoral criminal organizations, with the rare sort internal discipline its seems mostly to come with Axis II disorders and from particular subcultures, and [b] genetic flukes, such as your own good self. ]
Second:
And possibly as important somewhat in the same vein, it’s not every single intercept where the propriety of it will be immediately apparent, and Fitz would be only too aware of the tendency of the media towards fussing & the masses towards unrest & a lot of us picking up pitch-forks both figurative & real where the immediate need for insta-rationalization is not at hand. On what other basis do TV talking heads proliferate?
Far preferable to act prophylactically, exercise a little restraint, display some civil servant judgment, & avoid riling up the herd needlessly.
Third:
Some might see the stuff reported as spewed forth from the mouth of MacBlago as ’shocking’ – but humans who fancy they’re enjoying a wee bit of privacy have been known to say things which are – how to put this – far more intimate, involving real people [& their ambitions – & their components – & their ambitions for their components], none of which is necessarily all that directly relevant to the purposes of the investigation.
Fourth:
Absorbing as it may be for the participants, most – by far the vast majority – of incidents involving human social intercourse carry little to no objective relevant interest. I never fail to be astounded at the reaction of clients new to the phenomenon, who, having listened with fascination to hundreds of their own recorded conversations and having poured or at least leafed through the transcripts of over hundreds to thousands of their own words, suddenly decide that it’s absolutely vital that I secure for their timely inspection, in equally impressive – and expensive – condition, each and every one of the tens-to-hundreds of thousands of other conversations created by them, and their family members, girlfriends, mistresses, massage parlor hostesses, hookers, pushers, johns, putative associates & hangers on, cold-calling peddlers and brokers, pizza place spokespersons, dentists’ offices, total strangers, wrong numbers, etc etc etc.
In conclusio: I’m not about to say there isn’t some other elusive agenda in the selection of these 4 – but that’s your peculiar specialty, and if you can’t see a pattern, IMO that greatly increased the chances that it’s from some combination of what’s been said & written by Fitz, what’s blatant and patent & goes without saying, and some mix of the factors I’ve mentioned.
Fair enough.
Incidentally, note the communication surrounding the Burris appointment:
Sam Adam Jr., who may or may not be Blago’s defense attorney (but who has beat NDIL in at least one case) calls Burris and says, “gotta talk.” This conversation would presumably be minimized bc of Attorney Client privilege.
Sam goes to Burris’ house, thus engaging in a conversation that would not be taped. We only have Burris’ version of this conversation.
Two days later, Sam shows up again. Again, not taped (presumably). Just Burris’ version of the conversation.
Shortly thereafter, Blago calls BUrris (well aware he’ll accept). He apparently rehearses Burris’ extensive qualifications for the office on the phone (which will be taped and not protected), and then offers the spot. Burris accepts.
Voila! A perfectly performed exoneration tape for Fitz!!!
But I’m sure that’s all incidental.
Nice.
Incidentally, the extent to which attorney-client privilege applies is curtailed, not just by factors that are obvious to you – like Adams and Burris not having or discussing things in the relationship that activates the privilege – but also some that may not be obvious – like if what they were discussing advanced a criminal purpose, even if one of them, or neither, was aware of that effect.
I may have put that too densely, but for me to do it more clearly is going to be pretty pedantic. Ach – maybe laying out a fiction, a theoretical scenario:
Assume a state governor – let’s call him “Q” – had a number of discussions with an aide, someone Q trusts, someone who, they agree with each other, or its obvious they mutually assume without actually saying so with any great degree of precision, when he talks folks realize he does so on Q’s orders or with his authority backing him up – call him “R”.
Assume that in conversations over time, the two of them concoct a scheme – a scheme to accomplish something that’s against the law; since Q’s a governor, let’s hypothesize a scheme with a typical form of public corruption in mind: say, pay-to-play.
Assume further that Q & R mutually recognize that it’s risky to them for they themselves to execute on some, maybe even most, of the details to the scheme that need to be pursued to bring about the desired end, but that also they have at their disposal a number of ‘trustees’, if you will, each willing to do things on the request or authority of Q or R, but without necessarily requiring that they be informed fully of the implications of such asks & orders. Let’s call these trustees “S”, “T”, “U”, “V” & “W” – & while we’re at it, let’s just assume trustee W happens to be a licensed & practicing attorney with Q being among his clients.
Assume the scheme demands that, somehow, a meeting of minds be reached among Q and a outside actor: “X”. Assume Q & X have had some prior business in common, maybe quite a bit of it, but in particular one piece of business in common with another outside actor with whom each has a relationship: “Y”, with each knowing the nature of the other’s relationship with Y, being such that a sort of bond, including some level of ‘understanding’ can be achieved when the name of Y, or Y’s interests, or even just his specter, is introduced into the mix.
Under those circumstances, one can envision a scenario by which Q & R would agree that R might arrange for T to contact X, bearing a which by the mere fact of it being born by X would convey the unsaid information of it’s origins laying with Q, and at the same time would invoke the specter of Y, again without even the name of Y passing anyone’s lips – or at least not in any way that could be objectively appreciated as being in more than a passing way.
That connection made, one can envision a scenario by which Q would meet with one of his lawyers, or his lawyer of the moment, the aforementioned W, who would be dispatched to meet with X, to exercise restraint in conversation, caution in establishing mutual clarity, and care in assuring that all that needs be settled be settled, all without mentioning either Mr T or the spectral Y, altho for reasons pivotal to the scheme would not just mention but indeed invoke openly the name of Q, and by his office as well.
Moreover, while it may be conceivable that whatever W had been told by Q, & possibly other things by R, together with whatever he would have to realize was so as surely as 2 plus 2 equals 4, might suffice arguably to place W within the inner circle of those completely ‘in the know’, an outside objective observer might have to grant room for doubt in that regard, even just a little, but nonetheless enough, by virtue of or owing to the client-attorney relationship existing between Q & W.
Put crassly, the heat wouldn’t be able to simply pick up W & sweat him on what he’s been talking about with Q.
Finally however, if either W or X were to be so crass as to choose to raise the entire scheme in their meeting, the blatant criminality of the scheme as discussed would suffice to wipe out the previous efforts at discretion, including the insulating qualities of the client-attorney relationship between Q & X.
Wait. I was thinking R Kelly was Federal–it wasn’t–it was state. He didn’t beat NDIL on that.
RKelly also wasn’t Sam Adam. It was the star of every show, Eddy Genson.
His shingle:
Edward Genson, Criminal Defense
specializing in
Mobsters, Pedophiles and Republicans.
It certainly is beginning to sound like Burris probably is going to be having a heart-to-heart with one of Fitz’s minions.
Burris’s appointment is legal – that is, it was done according to stated procedure – but I’m wondering now just how clean he, and it, are.
well, heck. he as clean as any other il politician.
“It was done according to stated procedure.”
We have no way of knowing at this point. Sure, it’s tough to prove a negative, but a Governor on tape trying to sell the seat, whose new appointee spoke to his bagman about the seat months ago, and who sent his criminal defense lawyer to talk to the appointee, certainly put a cloud of possible illegality over the appointment.
I could concede “As far as we can prove, i was done according to stated procedure.” But we don’t know, and we have strong reason for suspicion.
Yeah, Gaza’s being destroyed, climate change is still happening, the Chinese and heaven only knows who else are getting contracts for oil fields in Iraq, and we ahve to deal with bullshit like this.
These people involved in the Illinois Clown Show are too clever by half.
Did anyone see the interview with (I think it is a female Chicago hospital employee) on some TV news last night? She was talking about wearing a wire to all these events from meetings to dinners to parties. It seems she was offended by pay to play (in re: the hospital) and was the person who went to the law on this, and thus agreed to wear a wire. It went on for months.
I did not see the whole thing and am not sure what TV (ABC, CBS or NBC, but one of those) and am not positive it was the Blago story, but I think it was.
BGrothus,
The hospital exec is Pamela Davis, and there are write-ups if you google. The hospital is in Naperville, which is a distant suburb, though from the vantage point of out of state, I guess it’s just Chicago.
Marcy,
I think you’re still going too easy on Burris over Lon Monk. He didn’t need the indictment to know that Monk was under the USAtty’s microscope. Everyone in the state involved in politics knew that 2 years or more ago. Here’s just one link, to a Daily Herald piece from mid-’07 (as reprinted on the BGA site, which might be a decent place for historical sources on this investigation):
http://www.bettergov.org/bga_i…..325_01.asp
Keep in mind that as the Libby trial is going on, I’m already suggesting that Fitz might pull a rare trifecta – a GOP Veep, a GOP gov and a Dem gov. This investigation is already ancient. (In fact, at the time, I thought he’d get Daley before Blagojevich, through the Sorich/Katalinic connection, which also leads to Rahm.)