Obama has said he did not talk to the governor about his vacant Senate seat. David Axelrod had to withdraw an earlier statement which said otherwise. There was presumably communication at some level between the two sides, even if it was just the exchange of demand and curt refusal. (Otherwise, Blagojevich would have had no grounds for calling the president-elect a motherfucker.) But the person receiving that demand was under an obligation to do more than just refuse. Perhaps he or she did do more than that. In due course, maybe, we will find out.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Whoever came in second in the bidding.
Whoever came in second in the bidding.
That should be called an Illinois auction: 2nd highest bidder has to drop a dime on the auctioneer.
Or, there's Nate Silver's theory, which is a third scenario:
Stern is whip-smart; in either or both of his conversations with Blagojevich, he may well have picked up an uncomfortable vibe, and that might well have contributed to Jarrett's apparent decision to withdraw herself from consideration from the Senate seat. However, there is probably some sort of purgatory between a conversation that would make you uncomfortable, and a conversation that you would report to the FBI. Blagojevich was buffoonish in his conversations with his advisers, but far less so in his conversation with outside parties, with whom he understood the need to cover his ass and be discreet.
It's not clear to me from what's been released that Blagojevich explicitly asked the Obama campaign for something. He said they're 'not willing to give me anything but appreciation,' but whatever requests were made might not have been particularly detailed, conceivably just some implied demands that didn't go any further when it became clear they weren't playing ball. He's clearly totally shameless in his discussions with his advisors, but it's doubtful that the communications with others were that direct. However, I think the point still stands since the Obama campaign clearly knew something was up.
Note that Obama said he was "sobered and saddened" by this, not surprised or outraged (apparently it was the Rod Blagojevich he knew). Obviously he was aware that Blagojevich was as crooked as a box of paperclips - as did everybody paying any attention - but I do buy the theory that he had no real actionable knowledge.
B- had been under surveilance for a while now, hadn't he?
A lot of people are wondering about the mid-sentence "pronoun switch" correction....
Obama: "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so we were not -- I was not aware of what was happening."
TakeFlight,
I noticed that, too. What are aides are for? Buffers of plausible deniability.
Rule 1 of Chicgo politics: Anyone coming from Mayor Daley is corrupt.
Blago? Former prosecutor under Daley.
I find it head-bangingly humorous that after all the crap Obama got away with the general election, this might be the scandal that sticks.
Actually, I think Rule 1 of Chicago politics is that EVERYONE, living AND dead, is a registered Democrat......
There's no way that Blagojevich would crudely demand money or even an appointment from Obama or his people. Obviously, Obama has too much power and too much to lose to be involved in anything like that at this point, and Blagojevich knows it. That's why Obama is the "motherfucker" -- he's got the power and he doesn't have to pay to play. Blagojevich is afraid he's going to be forced to appoint Obama's candidate for nothing. That said, I'm sure Obama and his people had some idea of what was going on. Whether anyone was in a position to narc, well who knows. Ambinder says it definitely was not Rahm Emanuel.
jwh,
and even the Republicans are part of the Democratic machine.
Denying that he spoke to him seems odd and implausible. I'm probably biased because observing the President-elect's habit when dealing with Chicago politics before (such as his endorsement of Todd Stroger), it already seemed to me that he was not personally corrupt, but certainly not busting down the doors to fight corruption either. He chose to get along (without going along) with whom he needed to in order to grease his path upwards, rather than trying to fight them. Doesn't make him corrupt; doesn't make him a saint either.
So I have no problem believing that he told Blago no but didn't snitch either.
I was under the impression the FBI was already tapping his phones when all this bartering began?
Aren't you forgetting another possibility.
Obama has been getting daily FBI briefings at least since the election (maybe sooner) maybe the FBI tipped him off to what they had been hearing on the wiretaps and Jarrett pulled herself out of the running before ever talking to anyone in the Gov's office. IIRC she did seem to drop out really fast.
I'm in the process of writing a longer piece on this (if you'll forgive the self-plug), but the informant is definitely not Rahm Emanuel or anyone else who acted on behalf of Obama. The wiretap and bug started in October - before Emanuel was believed to be a Chief of Staff contender, before the election, and - most importantly - before Blagojevich started strategizing how to use the Senate seat as leverage.
Also, my reading of the complaint indicates that there is no suggestion or implication that the Obama campaing had any reason to know what Blagojevich was doing.
One other thing - it's extremely clear that Blagojevich has been under investigation for months as an offshoot of the Rezko trial. It's also clear that there is a separate investigation going on that may or may not implicate Blagojevich; the informant looks to have come about as a result of an immunity deal in that investigation.
As an Obama-hater who nonetheless wants to be sure: if Obama or his campaign knew about this, was he under any legal obligation to tell prosecutors? What if it were mere suspicion by Obama or his campaign?
if Obama or his campaign knew about this, was he under any legal obligation to tell prosecutors? What if it were mere suspicion by Obama or his campaign?
Misprision of a felony--that is, failure to report a felony to authorities--is prosecuted exceedingly rarely. On the other hand, I believe some states make reporting dishonest conduct by another lawyer to the bar mandatory. I'm too lazy to look it up.
Mere suspicion is never reportable.
Also, my reading of the complaint indicates that there is no suggestion or implication that the Obama campaing had any reason to know what Blagojevich was doing.
The only thing that seems to imply it is that Blagovich seemed so certain who Obama's favorite candidate was, and that Obama wouldn't play ball. Also, there were clear leaks on Nov. 9 from the Obama campaign that Obama wanted Valerie Jarrett, Candidate 1, to take the seat, followed by equally clear leaks from the Obama campaign on Nov. 10 that she wasn't going to take the seat and was going to stay in Washington.
The timeline certainly fits for the Obama campaign to have discussed it, Blago to have tried to (however obliquely) bring things around to the quid pro quo, and then the Obama campaign withdrawing her name once they realized what was going on. It's certainly not proved, but it does seem like a reasonable story. Enough for "suspicion," perhaps, not enough to think that there was anything criminal necessarily.
So just for the hell of it I did look it up for my states; if Obama were a WA attorney, he "should" have reported this to the bar, but if he were an OR attorney, he would have been required to report it.
I don't know where Obama is barred or what the rules might be there.
To Rob Lyman:
"Misprision of a felony--that is, failure to report a felony to authorities--is prosecuted exceedingly rarely."
---True, but are we to have higher standards for a president/political officer? Put another way, if Bush or his campaign had known of crime like this but failed to report it, would people be calling for action against him?
"On the other hand, I believe some states make reporting dishonest conduct by another lawyer to the bar mandatory. I'm too lazy to look it up."
---I can tell you one thing-the Illinois state bar ethics commission is laughably weak and wouldn;t even bother doing anything even if they knew about it. And, of course, all that they could do would be to pull Obama's law license, not that he ever really used it.
"Mere suspicion is never reportable."
---True enough. But do our standards change for elected officials versus average citizens?
Class?
John Thacker:
I don't deny that the Obama camp played its share of cards with respect to the open Senate seat. And your theory of the case certainly fits. I would indeed be shocked if there was no discussion of Obama's preferences between someone high up in the Obama camp (though I doubt it would be Obama himself just because he had bigger fish to fry at the time) and Blago or one of his closest staffers.
But I think the quotes from Blago in the Complaint repeatedly make clear that he wanted to do everything he could to prevent the Obama camp from thinking he was up to a quid pro quo of some sort, if only because he knew - at least beginning the day after the election - that they would not go for it if he approached the topic in that way, especially considering that Blago's legal problems were rather well-known.
As far as I can tell, his actions amount to an attempt to get the Obama camp to make the first move. There may well have been some lower-level feelers put out to gauge whether the Obama camp would be receptive to some kind of "understanding," but the way Blago says things, it's pretty clear that from the beginning he understood that, at least with respect to the Obama camp, he wasn't going to achieve any success if they thought he was shaking them down. Every time he began to think he could pull something off, the complaint indicates that his cronies pretty much told him he was dreaming.
That said, the big mystery is really "who is Advisor B" and what firm is he with? I have little doubt that he has some connection with the Obama campaign, if only because "Washington DC based consultants" tend to have a connection with just about every politician on one side of the aisle or another. The real question is what the nature of that relationship was. I'd be shocked if it was someone who actually has Obama's ear, but if it is, then there would be a strong basis to think Obama himself knew what Blago was trying to do.
Also - it looks like after "Candidate 1" was taken out of the running by the Obama campaign, Blago sent out feelers to try and more or less explicitly obtain a quid pro quo from her to get her back in the race.
Finally, it's worth noting that Blago is charged under federal fraud statutes since he is not covered under the federal bribery statutes. I have little to no experience with Illinois law, but, at least as Illinois defines it, I'm not sure Blago's actions with respect to the Senate seat fit within the state bribery law.
@Basic Fact:
First (and while I'm not usually one to disagree with Mr. Lyman), misprision of a felony under federal law requires an active concealment of the felony in addition to a failure to report. It doesn't sound like there's any allegation of concealment here, even if we read everything in a light that is most unfavorable to Obama. Outside of federal law, there are relatively few jurisdictions that recognize misprision of any sort as a crime.
Second, while it would be wonderful if we held our public officials to a higher standard, we can't simply impose that higher standard to apply to something that has already happened - and for good reason.
As for whether "mere suspicion" should be enough to give rise to a duty to report when the suspect is a politician, that standard would politicize law enforcement in an unprecedented manner. As much as I despise most politicians, the fact is that they do not give up their procedural due process rights when they are elected.
Finally, with respect to attorney ethics, so far as I know, any rule requiring or recommending that an attorney report another attorney requires "actual knowledge" or unethical behavior calling into question their fitness to practice as an attorney. So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that, even if the Obama camp suspected Blago was up to something, Obama himself actually knew Blago was soliciting bribes.
I don't think Emanuel was the first to snitch, but I would not be surprised if he or a staff member contacted Fitzgerald, and told him he had political cover and support from the new administration if they arrested before the Senate appointment. The timing is too timely for the Obama people, and too hurried and front page splashy for a Fitzgerald indictment.
Mark:
I'm really not talking about holding Obama to a standard made up after the fact. I'm talking about whether that standard is already in place--whether, if Bush had known about this crime and done nothing, Democrats could call for his head.
The thing is, we're nto just talking about Illinois law--we're talking about the oath Obama will take to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, and his fitness for office.
The rules for impeachment/investigation aren't merely breaking federal law--it's about the spirit of the law and Constitution as well. Presidents (rightfully, in my opinion) have been held accoutnable for other things that weren't found to be crimes--Clinton for lying under oath, for instance.
I ask again: If Bush had known a crime was to be committed by someone he knew who was not in his administration (like, say, the Governor of Texas selling a Senate seat) and didn't report his, would Democrats be calling for his head?
If your concern is impeachment, and whether Obama "could" be impeached, the answer is that, yes, he technically "could" - a President can be impeached and removed for just about anything, as long as there are enough votes to do it; there is little-to-no possibility of judicial review of an impeachment verdict. But that is a far different issue of whether he "should" or "would" - for obvious reasons, Congress is not (and should not) be in the habit of impeaching a President for every perceived malfeasance. That said, the theoretical requirement that impeachment be limited to "high crimes and misdemeanors" should generally be interpreted to mean something akin to "abuse of power." It is a definition that does not incorporate all crimes, but is also simultaneously not limited to criminal activity. Under this view, a failure to report a crime cannot conceivably amount to a "high crime or misdemeanor" since it's something that is no more or less damaging when done by a private citizen or a public official. (That it's not even a crime only strengthens this conclusion).
Regardless, what we are talking about here is not Obama's failure to report a crime - there is no inkling of evidence that Obama himself specifically knew that Blagojevich's actions were criminal, particularly in light of the fact that the evidence thus far makes pretty clear that Blago's interactions with the Obama camp on this issue were pretty much limited to Obama aids and staffers. But even if Obama was himself involved in discussions with Blago, what Blago was asking for was not on its face criminal. It may have given rise to a suspicion that Blago was up to something criminal, but it could not have given rise to actual knowledge thereof (particularly since the crime Blago was committing, fraud, requires a specific intent to defraud; it would be inappropriate to demand that the Obama camp have actual knowledge of Blago's intent).
And there is simply no basis to insist that someone be reported simply because a politician suspects (but does not know) that they are looking to engage in illegal activity. If that were the case, then we would need to impeach just about every politician, ever - it's just about impossible for an elected official to avoid contact with someone he suspects is engaging in illegal activity.
All of which is a long answer to the question "whether, if Bush had known about this crime and done nothing, Democrats could call for his head." The short answer is: yes, they technically "could," but no, they Constitutionally "shouldn't," and as a practical matter "wouldn't."
Mark,
Constitutionally, I believe in both cases they should and, in this environment against Bush, I believe they would. Knowing about a crime involving selling your just-vacated office and doing nothing about is very arguable grounds for misprison--or, if you knew the office would be sold to someone who was an ally of yours and would be so in Congress while you were president, a very good prosecutor could make the case for conspiracy. As a former holder of the office who is volunatrily leaving it, Obama still has the responsibility to make sure the people who elected him in Illinois aren't defrauded.
Participation in illegal simony is very serious.
That being said, this hypothetical was ehat I was talking about: whether, if Obama knew about the sell-off and did nothing, he could be impeached for it.
I would say he can, and Congress should. But there is no evidence he did any of that. My argument was based on the hypothetical.
Basic Fact:
If the Dems would be willing to impeach Bush under your hypothetical, then they would have been willing to impeach him for any number of other activities, especially considering his immense unpopularity the last few months. This is a point that I think holds regardless of whether you are a supporter of Bush - even forgetting for the moment about issues like torture and warrantless wiretapping, things like the US Attorney scandal were, under any measure, far worse than a situation where Bush hypothetically just failed to report a crime....and yet, there wasn't so much as an influential push to impeach.
But on the normative issue, it's important to remember that our politicians are human just like the rest of us. This doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them to a higher standard; but it does mean that we should try to limit that higher standard to issues that directly relate to the duties to which we elect them. Good politicians are hard enough to find (and as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on whether Obama is a 'good' politician); expecting them to abide by a standard in their personal lives that we don't hold to ourselves and our neighbors is not only hypocritical, but also deeply counterproductive because it discourages all but the most power-hungry from seeking political office.
If Bush had known a crime was to be committed by someone he knew who was not in his administration (like, say, the Governor of Texas selling a Senate seat) and didn't report this, would Democrats be calling for his head?
We already know the answer. It is no. Bush might have had knowledge in your scenario, but no legal obligation to report it. The USA would only have reason to investigate Bush if he was involved in the bidding or assisted the state politician in his efforts.
And we're not even suggesting that Obama personally had knowledge of Blago's scheme, are we? Oh right, the Liberal Media is.
I love the media's justification for their concern trolling: They say that since they were so complacent and manipulated during the Bush administration, that they have to be tough on Obama to restore their good name. It's funny, because they did the same thing in the transition from Bush-Reagan to Bill Clinton.