There is an old joke about the man who loses his car keys one night. He looks for his keys, not where he dropped them, but under the streetlight because the light is better there.
The U.S. Attorney's complaint and affidavit disclose Blagojevich's alleged conspiracy to use unofficial intermediaries to convey what he wanted from Obama without disclosing that it was part of a corrupt bargain. So far Obama has said absolutely nothing about whether he plans to release any conversations that he and his staff had with these unofficial emissaries from Blagojevich in which it may have been suggested that Blagojevich wanted a job with SEIU or a new private foundation.
In essence, Obama has promised to release a list of staff contacts with people who were not directed to shake him down, but has not indicated whether he will release a list of contacts with those who were directed to shake him down.
Next week, we may get an idea whether Obama plans to stonewall the press on his staff's most relevant contacts, probably none of which would have been recorded by the FBI. If Obama decides to stonewall the press, we may soon get an idea whether the press will let him get away with it. Without seeing full transcripts of the wiretaps, which may never come out, we may not learn whether the intermediaries ever reported back to Blagojevich on any of their discussions with Obama staffers.
In the comments below, I'd particularly like to hear whether VC readers (especially some of Obama's most uncritical supporters) think that Obama should release all his staff's contacts with unofficial emissaries from Blagojevich — and whether you think Obama will do so next week.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Will Obama release staff contacts with Blagojevich's emissaries?
- Interpreting the Obama Team's Press Release.
These posts are increasingly looking like something one might find in the Weekly Standard.
I am however, greatly amused with a new theme that seems to be rearing its tawdry head in the media: portraying Fitzgerald an overzealous prosecutor in a transparent effort to minimize Libby's conviction. I believe Scalia's majority decision in Brogan should be the guide.
I think it's very likely that Obama is constrained in what he can say in public, as noted by Steve, above, and there are plenty of possibilities for the source of the constraint aside from the US Attorney. Perhaps most of what he know is second-hand info, and that he knows the primary source is cooperating with the US Attorney.
@Tony
There are two set of responses to the questions at the end of your post if you aren't being rhetorical:
The Pro-Obama one:
Obama is at least somewhat devoted to Illinois seeing as how he's represented it for the past decade+. As a result he's made enough contacts, knows enough people, and cares enough about his state so as to have a preference about who to recommend to take over the seat (for example someone who isn't similar to a Blagojevich or Daley). Blagojevich is clearly delusional and may have thought Obama would play ball with him or thought he had something on Obama (when in fact he had nothing) and that's why he's approach him on the issue.
The Anti-Obama one:
Obama knows that Blagojevich has something on him or say Emmanuel or one of his advisors. This was a fairly extensive investigation apparently not just centered on the seat and at the very least will have some folks singing like a canary when it comes to trial. In the course of a decade+ of politics in chicago and considering that Obama does play politics to a certain extent (he waged a pretty tough primary battle for state senate), Obama has done favors or worked with unscrupulous individuals. Blagojevich is governor and has a sizeable political infrastructure in the state and may have information on some of those things and may use that as blackmail. Obama still holds considerable weight in Illinois politics and is even more prominent in the WH—Blagojevich knows he's the person to sanctify a senate replacement and whatever other goods he wants. So he went to Obama (through some channel of aides, direct contact or something else) to force him to work with him.
My view:
I'll wait as more information comes out—its very early. I hope Obama will be pretty open with respect to this without violating Fitzgerald's directives (he did run a pretty secretive/closed campaign). The initial reaction by Obama was a bit too muted but it isn't incriminating or anything. The fact that the initial report showed Blagojevich's exasperation with Obama not meeting his demands is pretty heartening. Emmanuel seems to be the most interesting bit to me. He's got an extensive history in Illinois considering that outside of the Clinton administration he's spent his entire life there. He was the guy who replaced Blagojevich as a house member when he moved to governor and who defeated Blagojevich's former opponent from past cycles. Add to that Emmanuel's tough and 'divisive' reputation and he might be far more exposed in this case than Obama. It's a bit naive to think this won't taint some more members of the democratic establishment in Illinois, but its unfair to indiscriminately assume who those people will be.
Will Obama release his people's contacts with Blago's people? Formal contacs aren't enough! Inquiring minds are concerned he may be hiding corruption.
What about his Birth Certificate? BoLB isn't enough! Inquiring minds are concerned he may be hiding Muslimitude.
What about his HS transcript? Harvard grades aren't enough! Inquiring minds are concerned he may be hiding being stupid.
What about his contacts with Ayers? Saying he's a family friend isn't enough! Inquiring minds are concerned he may be hiding being a mad bomber.
What about his being elected? Winning the election isn't enough! Inquiring minds are concerned he may be hiding ACORN stealing everything.
What about his being human? Looking human isn't enough! Inquiring minds are concerned he may be Satan.
Obama: I have like a million questions, and this means he's just like Clinton, so I'm going to use the attack-Clinton-all-the-time playbook, OK?
I don't recall a single Lindgren post ever parsing GWB's press conference answers (granted there were only like 3 of them in eight years) or deeming his or his administration's response as potentially incomplete or capable of double meaning.
You are a partisan hack, sir.
by the way, your quip about torture was so funny and reflects so well on you
2. As to the ID of the contacts, Obama's staffers would know who contacted him on Blago's behalf. Tom Balanoff has been IDd by the Times as being the SEIU official who was asked to contact Valerie Jarrett or someone else on the campaign. And, though individual A is unknown, his direction to contact Obama Advisor (probably Emanuel or Axelrod) can be examined on Obama's end.
Then there is the person who led to Blago knowing on Nov. 11 that Obama was offering only appreciation. Some in the press have speculated that it was probably one of the people in the Washington Knapp firm, which may have been the firm in the big Nov. 10 call that changed the trajectory of the case. From what I read, that firm includes a major Obama consultant to the campaign, but not on the transition team.
3. I DID NOT say that Obama is stonewalling. (I do wish he'd just say there were contacts, but I can't tell you yet for very good reasons.) I said that we will get an idea (again, not be certain) whether he is stonewalling next week. So in your opinion, will he disclose the contacts between Blago intermediaries and his staff -- and should he?
This is what is confusing many of us, Jim. The mainstream opinion is that it's obvious that Obama's team had contacts, and it's equally obvious that they weren't very important, AND that the reason Obama is being evasive is because Republicans will seize on anything that gives the appearance of impropriety, even if it's really not bad.
This all seems pretty obvious. What am I missing?
It seems to me that you are trying to get Obama to fess up while disclaiming any intent to demonize him. Some would call that leaving the dirty work to others.
1)You assume that an intermediary would identtify themselves as an emissary from Blago. There is no reason to assume that, from conspiracy cases I am familiar with.
2) As I stated above, those convesations related to the complaint are the ones I do not want anyone disclosing in the press, as a prosecuter. On the other hand, maybe FitzGerald has agreed to wrap up that part of the investigation by next week and although I still would not want them disclosed, they have reached agreement re such disclosure.
I did post once about an interview when I suspected that Bush was flat-out lying, but I did (and do) not have enough knowledge of the background facts to call him a liar (and, unlike Blago's shakedown attempt, it might be something he would not have been told about if staffers knew).
Also, I was posting above in part because I had seen no one else in the press or the blogosphere noticing that Obama had promised to release much less than it appears on the surface. I would think that even Obama diehards would want to realize this, but I sense an incredible lack of curiosity.
In the fall, I was understanding that so many were so desperate to regain the White House that any criticism was treated as heresy. I thought things would greatly improve after the election, but I still see some of the same denial and closed-mindedness.
I think commenters miss my motivation: I'm not angry at Obama in the slightest. I still like Obama and I think at bottom he is more honest than most politicians, though he is considerably less candid in his speech. His probable underlying honesty is one reason I've voted for him so many times (though not, for the first time, this fall). It's the press that I really can't stomach.
While we are awaiting more facts, it appears possible that Obama refused a shakedown attempt on about Nov. 10, and then failed to report it to the FBI. The first act is admirable and the second is not only defensible, but I'm one of the only people in the press or the blogosphere to have defended it.
That's the point, though - why are you so curious? I think it's obvious to most people he's parsing words, and I think it's obvious why - he's a lawyer and he's worried about getting the Ken Starr treatment. Sure, in hindsight, it might have been better politically to disclose everything up front; but the jury's out. But what is so fascinating about a politician being cagey?
This is quite amazing. In other words, you have two very different standards -- Bush can get away with a lot more crap than Clinton or Obama merely because he's lazy with his words?
I'd love to have you as a law professor -- my grades would be much higher because I can just claim that I'm not as eloquent or precise as the better students, and so I deserve a higher grade than the good students.
When the stupid ones are rated higher than the smart ones, it's time to find a better system.
worshipersardent supporters that you know Obama didn't do anything wrong, because Obama can't do anything wrong. If Obama does it, by definition, its a GOOD THING.But to answer your question, I don't really know if he will disclose all of those contacts, but I can see some situations where not disclosing some of them might be prudent.
I didn't say the scandal was a non-story, I said the Blago-Obama connection was a non-story. Despite the irresponsible and rampant speculation throughout the national media--filling hours on cable TV--there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Obama has done anything wrong. Continuing to obsess over what Obama knew and when he knew it in light of this complete absence of even the suggestion of evidence of anything improper suggests an agenda--a desire to tear down by implication if nothing else.
You seem to be the arbiter of good humor today. I assume you think its no joke that endless Sunday morning energy was expended on Blago/Obama, and not a word was uttered about the astounding Levin-McCain report.
Also, now that Volokh Groupie proved I'm a sockpuppet, I can reveal myself as Michelle Obama!
Take that!
But when you ask whether he should "release all his staff's contacts with unofficial emissaries from Blagojevich", that puts the onus on him for a gaping ambiguity you could drive a truck through. Is anyone who asked any member of his staff anything pertaining to the appointment an "unofficial emissar[y]", however brief or casual the contact? Does it count if Valerie Jarret's mother asked her, "Did Barack say how hard he'll fight to get you that seat?" I mean it's conceivable Blago paid mom to sniff around. Where do you draw the line?
Heh. Children and their idols. It's really funny sometimes.
You speculate an ‘apparent possibility’ and then wonder why no else in the press is defending your imagined hypothetical?
And people say I must have a post or neo-impressionistic view of events as they occur!
FWIW, the Financial Times said this:
Are they generally considered left-wing? I didn't think so.
I won't edit Jim's thread here, but you are not welcome in any of my threads. If you try to comment in any of my threads in the future, I will permanently ban you.
Please, please, please, Professor, for the sake of your students, stop being so brutally disingenuous. It's an extremely poor example to set.
He should. He won't.
I don't know why you've gotten so mellow. I liked it better when you said stuff like this:
And this:
For some reason we're suddenly getting marty-lite.
I'm confused and a little dismayed at the apparent disconnect between the tone of Jim's posts and the separate explanations of his views, but how do you get that he's being disingenuous? Isn't it possible for him to believe everything he's saying?
The GOP does seem to have some kind of a problem with race. The RNC was 1.5% black. See here:
Meanwhile, "racial and ethnic minorities will make up a majority of the country's population by 2042 -- almost a decade earlier than what the bureau predicted just four years ago."
Uh-oh. Those "other folks" haven't just taken over the White House. Looks like they're taking over the whole country. Where is the GOP going to find votes?
TyWebb in his satirical post at 11:33PM demonstrates why many readers have difficulty believing it possible for Lindgren to believe everything he's saying.
That's an interesting take on things. But would you clarify it just a little bit, please. Which question are you asking, precisely?:
• Is it possible for a reasonable person to believe all of Professor Lindgren's statements?
• Is it likely that Professor Lindgren believes all of Professor Lindgren's statements?
• Is there a reasonable doubt that Professor Lindgren does not believe some of his own statements?
That's the disconnect I was referring to, and Ty's satire implicitly builds in the dishonesty explanation. But calling Jim dishonest without evidence other than what we perceive as flaws and inconsistencies in his arguments is itself a logical leap. There are plenty of possible explanations. Here are a few in no particular order:
1. There's some kind of breakdown of communication preventing us from understanding what Jim is really trying to say.
2. Jim's tone-deaf to how his posts present. (This is really just an example of #1.)
3. Jim's perception or analysis is clouded by bias.
4. Our perception or analysis is clouded by bias.
5. Jim's right, we're wrong, and this will become evident in time.
6. Jim's working for the F.B.I.
7. Jim's being disingenuous.
Granted, some of these are less likely than others, but #7 is far from the only one that's plausible. And I'm sure there are lots of other possibilities I didn't cover. So why would we jump to the unsupported conclusion it's any one one of the plausible options to the exclusion of the others? Isn't that kind of like what we think is wrong with what he's doing?
Because Obama knows this imbecile very well, and can intuit that he is up to no good. You don't imagine that a brilliant politician who can navigate the Illinois cesspool would let himself be dragged back into it.
Definitely, no story here.
But make no mistake about it: if Emanuel was solicited, and didn't report the bribe attempt, AND it is recorded in any form, then Emanuel is gone. That will leave Obama a little scarred but he should be able to go on from there without lasting effect.
The GOP does seem to have some kind of a problem with race. The RNC was 1.5% black.
No Jukebox,
Blacks seem to have some sort of problem with Republicans. Its not quite the same thing. After all the Republicans are the ones that elected the first Black Congressmen, Senator, and Governor, and we are still proud of the accomplishment. Of course we had to cheat to do it, we had to disenfranchise most of the white democrats. I'm proud of that too.
But how can you read Ty Webbs post, and then Dangermouse's response and then only threaten Dangermouse with banning? I'm certainly not defending Dangermouse, but really Ty Webbs post is vastly more deserving of condemnation. I know you certainly don't agree with his points such as:
or
Singling out Dangermouse after comments like that is illuminating.
The information seen so far does not suggest that Gov. Blagojevich expected Mr. Obama's chief aides to be approached in crude fashion.
From the Affidavit of Daniel W. Cain, attached to the federal complaint:
I'd also call your attention to paragraph 92, where Gov. Blagojevich (allegedly) “stated that the ‘trick ... is how conduct indirectly ... a negotiation’ for the Senate seat.”
This limited amount of information available so far is simply not consistent with idea that Mr. Emmanuel blandly listened to a straightforward solicitation from one of Blago's goons.
(Incidentally, the link I provided is from the sidebar to this New York Times story. Just in case anyone wants the first half of the affidavit.)
Ty Webb's comment was over the top, but there are differences between it and DangerMouse's which may not be worth detailing if they're not obvious to you. Because more important, I suspect, is that one commenter has a long VC rap sheet and the other doesn't.
This is what I heard on NPR this morning. Fitzgerald asked the transition team not to release the information. Absent that request, I'd say that the transition team should lay its cards on the table, but they can't really do that now.
As an Obama supported, I suspect that the more we learn, the better Obama will look good.
Sigh.
Kazinski:
I agree that my first paragraph was offensive. Satire sometimes is. I don't see what you find objectionable about the paragraph that begins with arabic 7. A significant portion of this blog's audience does find Mr. Lindgren speculative and frivolous. Do you disagree?
Prof Kerr:
I'm sorry that I instigated something with what many could construe as a post outside the terms of service. I didn't mean to flare tensions or take the tenor of the discussion beyond the vitriol that Mr. Lindgren already started. I certainly didn't mean to stoke the flames of a conflict between you and another commenter. Sorry.
All,
I agree, I'm being over-the-top. Normally levying charges of racism isn't something with which I'm comfortable. Having said that, I'd hope that the parallels between my satire and Mr. Lindgren's recent posting history were obvious. His views, as of late, remind me of the character Walter in the Big Lebowski, staying and finishing his coffee to point out the inherent tragedy of the erosion of the first amendment in a family restaurant. I just think someone ought to call him on it. The direct method of calling him on it ("Hey Lindgren, you're a quack!") hasn't seemed to affect him in any way, so I thought doing it with a laugh-track might work.
In any event, I realize now that, for better or for worse, the comment thread here isn't exactly a place for such discussion. Thanks to those (LM, J. Canuck, and News Reader) who saw my post for what it was intended to be, however ungainly it may have been after a long day of motion writing.
Here's one reason: because Lindgren has a documented track record of disregarding the truth.
There's a small problem with your analogy. As far as we know, Armitage only leaked to two people.
Another problem with your claim is that both Obama and Fitzgerald are known for running non-leaky organizations.
I'm not saying it's exactly "the same thing." I'm pointing out that from an electoral perspective, it pretty much amounts to the same thing. It's like spouses blaming the divorce on the other party. Who cares; the result is the same.
You are making reference to events that happened circa 1870. Living in the past will get you far. When you manage to reanimate Lincoln and put him in charge of the GOP, let me know.
Through this "idle" speculation, unsupported by any factual basis, allows Professor Lindgren to simultaneously question Obama's integrity while allowing him to deny that he is doing any such thing. I can already hear the response: "I never claimed that Obama knew what the questions would be." Shameful and intellectually dishonest.
There's even a word for this technique: paralipsis.
Orin doesn't like me because I think the Courts are worthy of contempt, while he loves them. It really has nothing to do with my response to Ty at all.