Posts

Rahm Almost Certainly Didn’t Bust Blagojevich

/25 Comments/in /by

I know I reported the local Chicago Fox reporter’s scoop that Rahm may have turned Blago into Fitz.

CONATY: We did receive a tip this morning that perhaps all of this came together so quickly because the Governor may have reached out to Rahm Emanuel, the president-elect’s chief of staff, in attempting to leverage filling the Senate seat. And it may have been Rahm Emanuel who tipped the scale and made this move as quickly as it did.

Rahm now denies he was the one who tipped off the investigation. But it was already clear from the chronology that Rahm couldn’t have been the one to tip off the entire wiretap.

My question now is whether Rahm’s source’s reference to "overzealous reporting" suggests Rahm was involved at all.

First, as to the chronology, Fitz’s complaint gives a timeline in which Blago’s discussions about the Senate replacement starting on November 3, the day before the election. While it is possible that Fitz is withholding earlier conversations about it (I’ll return to this later), it’s clear that Blago’s thoughts about brokering the seat were still formulating on November 4, when he starting thinking about things he might ask for in exchange for the Senate appointment.

On November 4, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with Deputy Governor A. This was the same day as the United States Presidential election. With respect to the Senate seat, Deputy Governor A suggested putting together a list of things that ROD BLAGOJEVICH would accept in exchange for the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH responded that the list “can’t be in writing.” Thereafter, ROD BLAGOJEVICH discussed whether he could obtain an ambassadorship in exchange for the Senate seat. [my emphasis]

In other words, even assuming Fitz isn’t giving us everything, it’s clear that Blago was just beginning to think about brokering the position. 

But we know the first wiretaps went in much earlier than that–on October 22–and that they were based on information that came to light in early October. 

… in early October 2008, the government obtained information that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was accelerating his corrupt fund raising activities to accumulate as much money as possible before the implementation of ethics legislation on January 1, 2009, that would severely curtail ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s ability to raise money from individuals and entities conducting business with the State of Illinois.

[snip]

On October 21, 2008, Chief Judge James F. Holderman signed an order authorizing the interception of oral communications for a 30-day period in two rooms at the Friends of Blagojevich office: Read more →

Statement from SEIU Suggests Fitz Talked with SEIU

/13 Comments/in /by

I gotta disagree, politely, with Ian’s statement that the SEIU statement is "rather uninformative." Here’s the statement again, from Communications Director Ramona Oliver:

We have no reason to believe that SEIU or any SEIU official was involved in any wrongdoing.

In keeping with the U.S. Attorney’s request, we are not sharing information with the media at this time.

That statement tells us two very important things:

  1. Fitzgerald (or someone at his office) spoke with the SEIU, having made requests to the union that it not share information with the media
  2. After having spoken to the SEIU, the union believes that "no SEIU official was involved in any wrongdoing" 

Particularly given Fitz’s description of people coming forward to tell their sides of the story (and the damned familiarity of that "US Attorney’s request about not sharing information" from seeing it so often in the CIA Leak Case) I would imagine that Fitzgerald has heard SEIU’s side of any conversations with Blago, and found nothing much there to be interested in.

So, to answer Ian’s question:

Is any of this criminally corrupt?  Was Harris reading in that SEIU was willing to do the 3 way deal?  Was the request for a job effectively politely brushed off "gee, we’d love to, but ummm, other people are doing the work" or was it being seriously considered.  It’s hard to tell from the what’s in Fitzgerald’s document.

I’d say that my experience with Fitz’s detailed indictments/complaints, coupled with the SEIU statement, leads me to believe that Fitz doesn’t believe any of the SEIU’s involvement was criminally corrupt. At least not as far as Fitz knows about thus far. 

Did Tribune Employees Tip Zell about the Wiretaps?

/6 Comments/in /by

In addition to attempting to put Obama’s senate seat on e-bay, Governor Blagojovich has also allegedly been trying to leverage assistance for the sale of the Chicago Cubs for better coverage in the Chicago Tribune.

Sam Zell was trying to stave off putting the Tribune Company in bankruptcy by selling Wrigley Field. Zell wanted the help of the Illinois Finance Authority; Blago attempted to trade that help for more favorable coverage in the Trib.

Fitz’s team apparently picked up this attempt in the taps they placed to track Blago’s other schemes, including the selling of the senate seat. The chronology started on November 3, when Blago was discussing whether or not the Trib will be the one leading the call for impeachment. While listening to a discussion about that, Blago’s wife Patricia suggested that Blago “hold up that fucking Cubs shit. . . fuck them," later saying that Zell could just fire the Trib editorial board. Blago followed up by putting a stack of negative Trib articles together, and suggested that John Harris (the Chief of Staff who was also arrested today) take those articles to Zell and say, “We’ve got some decisions to make now … get rid of those people …. maybe we can’t do this now. Fire those fuckers.”

Two days later, Blago instructed Harris to inform Zell and his team that “everything is lined up, but before we go to the next level we need to have a discussion about what you guys are going to do about that newspaper” (the argument being that to get the IFA help, Blago would have to go around the legislature, precisely the same kind of thing the Trib was calling for impeachment over. Blago spoke specifically in terms of the value of IFA support for the Tribune Company: $100 million. 

On November 11, according to John Harris’s version picked up by the wiretaps, the Tribune Company talked about, “certain corporate reorganizations and budget cuts coming … before the end of the month." Harris took that to mean the Trib would go after anti-Blago editors during the reorganization: "reading between the lines, he’s going after that section." On November 21, Blago and Harris specifically talked about Trib Deputy Editorial Page Editor John McCormick "getting bounced." Read more →

Press Conference of Fitz Blago Liveblog

/179 Comments/in /by

picture-66.pngAh. Liveblogging Pat Fitz again. (Though it’ll be weird to liveblog watching his face, rather than the bald spot on the back of his head, which is what we got to see in the Libby trial.)

The press conference will start 7 minutes late. 

In the meantime, here’s my question for Fitz (not like he’ll answer it). Local Chicago press is reporting that Rahm Emanuel reported Blago after someone approached the Obama folks about who he wanted for the Senate seat. In other words, yes, Rahm may well be the good guy here, and Obama couldn’t be cleaner. Is that true?

Fitz up, introducing the guys involved. He’s not wearing his lucky blue tie.

Sad day for government. Blago taken us to a new low. Political corruption crime spree. Most appalling conduct is attempt to sell the Senate seat he had the sole right to appoint to replace Pres-Elect Obama. 

Back 8 weeks ago we had the following environment. A known investigation, recent trial.

Blago working feverishly working with contractors. $8 M project announced. Trying to get someone raise $100,000 in contributions. After being aware that pay-to-play scheme, decision made to use more extraordinary means. Bug placed in campaign office and home telephone. 

In addition to pay-to-play, we were surprised to learn of extortionist attempt against the Trib.  Blago and COS schemed to send a message to the Tribune company that the price of doing so was to fire certain editors. "Get them the bleep out of there, get us some editorial support."

Most appalling behavior that Blago tried to sell the seat vacated by Pres-elect Obama. Lincoln would roll over in his grave. "It’s a bleeping valuable thing. You just don’t give it away for nothing." Tapes reveal that Blago wanted a number of things: HHS, Ambassadorship, higher paying job for his wife, union job. He thought union might get benes from Pres-elect. 

Complaint makes no allegations about Pres-elect.

This lost when Pres-elect’s candidate took herself out of the running.

In another event, somebody else approached the governor. In government’s view, they were approached by intermediaries. Blago was worried that the contributions would actually be paid.  He wanted the money "up front." "Some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now, right now." "You gotta be careful how to express that, assume the whole world is listening." That’s the governor of Illinois. Finally, the governor talked about appointing himself to the Senate seat. Read more →

Would George Bush Consider a PatFitzPack of Pardons?

/24 Comments/in /by

JMart reports that Dick Durbin wrote Bush in support of a pardon for George Ryan (really, Durbin?!?!?!).

Obama’s colleague and close friend Sen. Dick Durbin sent a letter to the president this week requesting that he release Ryan, who is doing a 6 1/2 year federal sentence on corruption-related charges

Crazy as it sounds, I think Durbin’s onto something. In fact, I think he should start pitching a "PatFitzPack of Pardons" for Bush.

After all, we know that Scooter Libby is bound to get a pardon in the next few weeks.  Conrad Black has already asked for a pardon; and what neocon President could resist that request? Throw George Ryan in there, and you’ve got a hat trick.

Bob Novak Is One Key to Libby’s Aspen Letter

/in /by

Alright. Admittedly this discovery is rather dated. But hell–what are blogs for, if not to rehash that old Aspen letter Libby sent Judy in September 2005? Especially if, after rehashing the letter, you discover that Bob Novak may be there hiding among the Aspen trees?

Back when I first analyzed the letter, I compared how Libby’s description of the testimony of journalists matched up against published accounts about that testimony.

Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter’s testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call.

I compared that statement to the public reports from Tim Russert and Matt Cooper and agreed (after some coaching from readers), that Russert "did not discuss Ms. Plame’s name or identity with [Libby]" and Cooper "knew about her before [Libby’s] call." Surprise! Even in a cryptic letter, it appeared, Libby was being transparent and honest with Judy. Which struck me as rather suspicious–that Libby might tell such transparent truths in such cryptic language.

But I did that analysis a month before I first speculated that Libby had spoken to Bob Novak the week of the leak, and a full year before Libby’s and Novak’s conversation on July 9 was confirmed in court filings. That is, when Libby wrote the Aspen letter, we didn’t know that Novak was among the journalists who had testified about a conversation with Libby, but Libby knew it. And if my reading of the script Libby sent Judy via Steno Sue and Pool Boy was correct, then Judy would have known about the conversation, though not that Novak had testified. As a reminder, here’s how I first speculated that Libby and Novak had spoken:

Steno Sue’s Secret Message
The morning Judy testified the first time to the Grand Jury, one of Libby’s allies managed to get the following passage inserted into the newspaper that will replace the NYT as the nation’s newspaper of record.

[snip]

The Novak Surprise
Now we come to far and away the most curious part of this coaching session:

Libby did not talk to Novak about the case, the source said.

Is this still a message for Judy? Why would Libby’s friend need to remind Judy that Libby hadn’t spoken to Novak in the case? Unless she knew that he had spoken to Novak? I think it highly possible that Libby’s friend is telling Judy not to mention the fact that she knew Libby spoke to Novak about this case.

Read more →

Isn’t It Time to Chat with Kyle Sampson Again?

/in /by

Here’s an exchange between Dick Durbin, Senior Senator from Illinois, and Rove acolyte Kyle Sampson about the firing of Patrick Fitzgerald.

Durbin: Were you ever party to any conversation about the removal of Patrick Fitzgerald from his position as Northern District of Illinois US Attorney?

Sampson: I remember on one occasion in 2006, in discussing the removal of US Attorneys … or, the process of considering some US Attorneys that might be asked to resign, that I was speaking to Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley and I raised Pat Fitzgerald. Immediately after I did it I regretted it. I thought, I knew it was the wrong thing to do. I knew that it was inappropriate. And I remember at the time that Harriet Miers and Bill Kelley said nothing, they just looked at me. I regretted it and I withdrew it at the time and I regret it now.

Durbin: Do you recall what you said at the time about Patrick Fitzgerald?

Sampson: I said, Patrick Fitzgerald could be added to this list.

Durbin: And, there was no response?

Sampson: No. They looked at me like I had said something totally inappropriate, and I had.

Durbin: Why did you do it? Why did you recommend, or at least suggest that he be removed as US Attorney?

Sampson: I’m not sure, I don’t remember. I think it was maybe to get a reaction from them. I don’t think that I, I know that I never seriously considered putting Patrick Fitzgerald on a list and he never did appear on a list.

Now put that exchange together with Rove’s non-denial denial that he was involved in having Patrick Fitzgerald fired:

But Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, today issued an unequivocal statement about all of this to the Tribune on behalf of Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President Bush, architect of Bush’s presidential campaigns and a private consultant in Washington now.

"Karl has known Kjellander for many years,” Luskin said, "but does not recall him or anyone else arguing for Fitzgerald’s removal. And he (Rove) is very certain that he didn’t take any steps to do that, or have any conversations with anyone in the White House — or in the Justice Department — about doing anything like that.”

Of course, when Rove says "I don’t recall" about an event, it usually means, "I won’t admit it until you show more evidence" about that incident. Read more →

Fitzgerald Learned Rove Was Trying to Fire Him in 2005–While Rove Was Still Under Investigation

/in , /by

In a supplement to his responses to the House Judiciary Committee, Patrick Fitzgerald confirms what we’ve always suspected: Karl Rove was trying to have Patrick Fitzgerald fired while Fitzgerald was still investigating Rove for his role in leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity–and the timing lines up perfectly with the Administration’s efforts to fire a bunch of US Attorneys.

Remember back in June, when Fitzgerald publicly suggested he had more details to share with Congress about Rove’s efforts to get him fired?

"If I owe a response [about the putsch to remove him from his job], I owe it to Congress, first," Fitzgerald said when asked about all this after the verdict.

Well, it turns out Fitzgerald did share those details with Congress. And those details make it clear that Fitzgerald learned Rove was trying to fire him while Fitzgerald was still actively investigating Rove’s role in the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity.

In my answers submitted on May 2,2008, I noted in my response to Question Eleven that I omitted discussion of when I first learned that I might be asked to resign as United States Attorney. I declined to answer more fully due to the then pending trial of United States v. Antoin Rezko in the Northern District of Illinois. With that trial concluded, I can briefly elaborate further: I learned some time in or about early 2005 from agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") that a cooperating witness (who later testified at the Rezko trial, but not about this topic) had advised the FBI agents that he had earlier been told by one of Mr. Rezko’s co-schemers that it was the responsibility of a third person in Illinois to have me replaced as United States Attorney. I should be clear that I did not understand that any putative effort to replace me as United States Attorney was related to my conduct as Special Counsel but understood instead that it was related to the investigative activities of federal agents and prosecutors conducting a corruption investigation in Illinois. [my emphasis]

As a reminder, here’s the allegation with all the names handily added in (though I think Fitzgerald is referring to someone besides Ata, because Ata was not yet cooperating with the Rezko prosecutors):

In a hearing before court began, prosecutors said they hoped to call Ali Ata, the former Blagojevich administration official who pleaded guilty to corruption yesterday, to the stand.

Read more →

The Attorney General Thinks It’s Okay for the Vice President to Have Ordered the Outing of a Spy

/in /by

Now we know why Attorney General Mukasey is willing to write such ridiculous letters in the service of hiding Vice President Cheney’s role in the outing of CIA spy: he apparently thinks it’s no big deal that the Vice President ordered the outing of a CIA spy.

At least that’s the implication of this exchange between Mukasey and Arlen "Scottish Haggis" Specter (34:00 to 36:01):

Specter: Moving to reporters privilege in the limited time left. Attorney General Mukasey what was the justification for keeping reporter Judith Stern [sic] in jail for 85 days when the source of the leak was known to be Deputy Attorney General [sic] Richard Armitage?

Mukasey: As you know I was not on duty when that case came to the fore, and it’s my own view that that case may very well be a better argument against the Special Counsel than it is in favor of legislation of the sort that’s been proposed.

Specter: I’m not prepared to deal with the Special Counsel because he’s not here. If I had Senator Leahy’s gavel, I would have brought him in here a while ago, once the case was finished. But it’s very germane in evaluating public policy on whether the Department of Justice ought to have the authority to issue a subpoena in the context and move for a contempt citation and hold a reporter [sic] in jail under very unpleasant circumstances. I can attest to that first hand–I went to visit her.

Mukasey: There’s no such thing as jail under pleasant circumstances. It is an inherent contradiction. It is something that therefore we use as a last resort, and we’re gonna continue to use as a last resort.

Specter: Well, why’d you need a resort when you know the leak? When you know who the leaker is, why go after a reporter or keep her in jail?

Mukasey: As I said, that was not…

Specter: I know that would be better addressed to the Special Counsel.

Mukasey: It would.

Specter: Someday we may have an opportunity to do that. But right now, you’re the one we’ve got, Attorney General Mukasey. You’re the guy who’s pushing a policy. So I think it’s a fair question to say to you, why maintain a policy that gives whoever the prosecutor is the power to do that when you know who the leaker is.

Mukasey: We don’t give that power to a prosecutor, for precisely that reason. Read more →

Waxman, Fitzgerald, and Mukasey

/in /by

In a response to Waxman today, Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear that Mukasey’s obstruction is the only thing standing between Waxman getting the Bush and Cheney interview reports. And Waxman is none too happy about it. Good.

In his letter, Fitzgerald confirms what has been clear thus far: because Bush and Cheney avoided the dangers of grand jury testimony, their interview reports are not protected under grand jury secrecy. But if Waxman wants them, he’s going to have to get them from Mukasey.

As to interviews which we have determined are not protected by Rule 6(e), we have provided responsive information to you, after allowing the appropriate executive branch agencies to review the documents consistent with the process described in my earlier letters. As discussed in prior correspondence, the Special Counsel team is not responsible for determining whether executive branch confidentiality interests will be asserted in response to particular requests by the Committee.

Consistent with the above process, I can advise you that as to any interviews of either the President or Vice President not protected by the rules of grand jury secrecy, there were no "agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation" and either the President or Vice President "regarding the conduct and use of the interview of interviews."

Shorter Fitz: blame Mukasey.

Which Waxman promptly did.

On June 16, 2008, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued a subpoena to you for the production of documents relevant to the Committee’s investigation of the leak of the covert identity ofCIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. You have neither complied with this subpoena by its returnable date nor asserted any privilege to justify withholding documents from the Committee. In light of your actions, I am writing to inform you that the Committee will meet on July 16, 2008, to consider a resolution citing you for contempt of Congress.

[snip]

The arguments you have raised for withholding the interview report are not tenable. When the FBI interview with the Vice President was conducted, the Vice President knew that the information in the interview could be made public in a criminal trial and that there were no restrictions on Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s use of the interview. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified this key point last week, Read more →