Story Number Five for Burris

Roland Burris continues to modify his story. Remember that, at first, he had nothing to do with Blago's pay-to-play scheme. Didn't speak to anyone, didn't agree to anything. But now:

Burris said he contacted "some people" about holding a fundraiser at the request of Blagojevich's brother, Robert, only to learn that no one was willing to help the governor. He said he later changed his mind, raised no money and contributed none.

The account to reporters in Peoria, Ill., was Burris's fifth version of his contacts with close associates of Blagojevich and the first time he acknowledged trying to raise money for the former governor, who was arrested and forced from office on corruption charges. (WaPo)

Does he just not understand that he's adding to the state's embarrassment over the Blago fiasco, or is it that he simply doesn't care? Naturally, as Illinois politicians are (correctly) outraged, they've chosen to open an ethics investigation over the matter' to this, "Burris said he would answer 'any and all questions' " (WaPo). Sure he will, and I'm sure there's not a chance he'd lie or anything.

How Stupid is This Man?

So you’re a state governor, and you know the Feds have been investigating you for some time now—“for more than a year” in fact—on allegations of corruption.

You’ve two former associates: one a “millionaire-fundraiser,” has talking to the Feds. The other is in prison on corruption charges, and rumors have it he’s been singing like a canary.

So, knowing the Feds are hot on your arse, do you lay low for a while? Or do you hit the accelerator?

Either Rod Blagojevich is pathologically arrogant or he is dumber than dirt. Undeniably, he’s headed for the hoosgow.

It's been alleged that Blogojevich attempted to “sell” the senate seat vacated by Barack Obama; if Blogojevich didn’t get a “good” deal, he’d fill the seat himself. Additionally, " [f]ederal prosecutors said Blagojevich and the chairman of his campaign committee have been speeding up corrupt fundraising activities in the last month to get as much money as possible before the end of the year when a new law would curtail his ability to raise contributions from companies with state contracts worth more than $50,000” (AP).

And don't forget the media: this charmer has, apparently, threatened the financially-strapped Chicago Tribune, by “illegally threatening to withhold state assistance [. . .] in the sale of Wrigley Field, according to a federal criminal complaint. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper's editorial board who had been critical of him fired” (AP). Why a company headed for chapter 11 bankruptcy thinks it’s a good investment to buy Wrigley Field is beyond me, but it’s never a good idea to intimidate the press like this.

Sure enough, corruption is a bipartisan matter. Recall that Louisiana voters handed Democratic Representative William Jefferson his rear on a plate just a few days ago. Keeper of an ill-gotten, ill-hidden $90,000, Jefferson, like Ted Stevens, had no reason for maintaining his government position; his decision to run for re-election after indictment speaks of some whopping hubris.

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska): Guilty on Seven Counts

From Politico's breaking story:

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was convicted today on seven counts of failing to report more than $250,000 in improper gifts he received from 1999 to 2006, a stunning blow to a political career that has lasted more than 40 years and marked Alaska’s entire history as a part of the United States.

He's scheduled to be sentenced on 25 February.

The GOP can't be thrilled with the conviction coming eight days before 04 November--it's going to dominate the news cycle for a while, but Senator Stevens himself actually requested that the trial occur before election day.

What might make folks queasy is that the Stevens verdict could further poison the current toxic atmosphere (what with its echoes of the Abramoff-fueled 2006). Even so, any large-scale political fallout is unlikely; people won't run away from Senator McCain or their local Republican candidates because of Stevens's guilt.

But do prepare for a barrage of blog posts detailing Governor Palin's relationship with Ted Stevens--you know it's going to happen.

Rumor Central: Tony Rezko

You might recall one Antoin Rezko, a Chicago real estate developer, restaurant owner, and political fundraiser. Rezko has been found guilty of fraud, and he awaits sentencing later this month. Although Rezko's name was repeatedly referenced throughout the primary season, expect a renewed emphasis on his links to Senator Obama by people opposed to Obama's presidential run. Both Fact Check and Politifact have reviewed the men’s relationship, and both conclude that there is no evidence linking Senator Obama to any impropriety.

In brief, and from FactCheck's article on Rezko:

Obama has a relationship with Rezko that dates back many years, but there’s no indication Obama did anything improper. Shortly after finishing law school, Obama, who had turned down a job offer from the developer, went to work at a law firm where he represented some community groups that partnered with Rezko to apply for housing rehabilitation loans. As a state legislator, he wrote letters to city and state officials in support of Rezko’s efforts to build apartments for the elderly with government money; the senator asserts that this was a project the community wanted. Obama got together with Rezko a couple of times a year, he has said.

Obama has donated campaign contributions from Rezko and his associates to charity, and he said in 2006, when the real estate transaction was reported by the press, that he made a “boneheaded” mistake by participating in the deal when it was known that Rezko was being investigated. “I regret it,” Obama said. “I’m going to make sure from this point on I don’t even come close to the line.”

It seems that most people have been satisfied with Obama's response, but some are eager to introduce doubt into the electorate. In the past two or three days, rumors have cropped up that the recently jailed Rezko will shortly provide information to federal investigators that could lead to an indictment of Obama. Rezko does appear to be speaking with the feds, but the Obama involvement seems a stretch. First, Rezko’s attorney asserts:

“'I'm not aware of any impropriety related to Rezko and Obama [. . . .] At no point has the government ever asked me a single question about Obama, or any wrongdoing involving Rezko and Obama,' (Washington Post).

Second, the investigation appears to target Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and his wife.

Aside: more FactCheck. This article focuses on a McCain Campaign ad that alleges that Rezko received a “14 million dollar favor” from Obama. The allegations are provably untrue.

Underestimating Palin's Potential

Joe Trippi is right: Democrats dismiss Sarah Palin at their own peril. See his post, "Don’t LOL. Palin Pick Is About Taking On Washington — Not About Gender," and note his argument well. Trippi predicts that McCain, having acquired a VP with a solidly reformist background, will employ rule number one from Karl Rove's playbook: turn your opponent's greatest strength into a weakness. In this case, Trippi asserts, McCain and Palin will zero in on Obama's role as "agent of change" and recast him as part and parcel of the political establishment:

The McCain/Palin duo will challenge Barack Obama’s claim of “a new kind of politics” and chastise Obama and Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee, Joe Biden, for their “silence” in taking on corruption in their own party in Illinois, Delaware and Washington, DC.

Think about it; the McCain camp didn't decide on Palin solely to pander to the distaff vote (and assuming as much underestimates women voters as well as the McCain campaign. Neither are stupid). Palin's record of cleaning up corruption, and her status as Washington "outsider," help reinvigorate McCain's "maverick" image; thus strengthened, he'll be equipped to go after Obama at full blast. And he will.

Democrats: don't laugh. Don't brush her off. Ignore her at your own risk.

Aside: Having said that, do read Maureen Dowd's column on Palin, "Vice in Go Go Boots." Fab.

Added: Bruce Reed at Slate, "Why Democrats needn't rush to trash Sarah Palin."

Update: Is Palin as straight-up and golden as she seems, and is she so terribly anti-earmark as she suggests? Perhaps not. See USA Today, The Anchorage Daily News, and The LA Times, . If nothing else, her history seems mixed at best.

Confirmed: Montgomery Blair Sibley suspended in DC and FLA

It's been confirmed.
Montgomery Blair Sibley, that "unending source of vexatious and meritless litigation," was given an official order of suspension from the Washington DC Bar. The order went into effect on 12 May, 2008. Overlawyered has located and posted the official order of suspension. In a post written earlier today, the site's Ted Frank wrote:

We had earlier held off pronouncing that Sibley was suspended in DC (in addition to Florida), because the DC Bar website was not updated, but we now have a copy of the May 8 suspension order, which was effective May 12, pending final disposition of the reciprocal disciplinary proceeding. Sibley had been representing Barack Obama-accuser Larry Sinclair in litigation against anonymous Democratic Underground blog commenters.

What are the chances that conspiracy theorists are going to hop all over this one? People unfamiliar with Sibley's history will claim that this is an effort by Dick Cheney / Barack Obama / the CIA to silence him due to his work for Deborah Palfrey or Larry Sinclair--anything rather than admit that the man has a problem with paying his child support, abusing the bar, or suing U S Supreme Court justices. Nope. It's more reasonable to claim Sibley's issues are all part of a cover up.

Erik Prince, Duncan Hunter, and political cynicism.

I should be working, but two newsy bits have caught my eye today.

1) According to a story on NPR, Erik Prince, who runs Blackwater USA (you know, the company whose contractors were accused of opening fire on unarmed civilians in Iraq?) has solid ties to Conservative Evangelical Christian groups and the Republican Party. Since 1998, he's given about $200,000 to conservative political candidates.

As Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise.” Sorry--Gomer was a Marine, Prince is ex-Navy.
Anyway, the AP reported yesterday that

Blackwater's ties to the GOP run deep. [Prince's contributions to GOP politicians presents] a pattern of donation followed by other top Blackwater executives. The company's vice chairman is Cofer Black, a former CIA counterterrorism official who is serving as a senior adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Members of Blackwater's legal team have included former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr and current White House Counsel Fred Fielding. The company tapped a GOP-connected public relations firm after the grisly 2004 deaths of four Blackwater employees who were ambushed by insurgents in Fallujah. Their remains
were strung from a bridge.

Sheesh. What more can you add? It's all so, so cynical.

2) And fresh in the "academic freedom" department, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is mad at Columbia University for letting the nutjob M. A. speak yesterday (9/24). He’s so mad, in fact, the he appeared on “Fox News’s Your World With Neil Cavuto and promised to introduce legislation ‘to cut off funds to Columbia University’” (Chronicle of Higher Ed).

I think what he’s really mad about is his poorly-polling presidential candidacy. Could he be any more obvious (or desperate) in trying to appeal to patriotic zealots? Does he actually imagine this will gain votes? A cynical, silly ploy.

I think it's great that M.A. spoke at Columbia because he revealed himself as an absolutely batsh*t lunatic; the man's lost any credibility he had with Americans sympathetic to Iran's struggles (except, perhaps, for those whacky folks on the fringe).

Moreover, as the Chronicle points out, even if Hunter and his buddies did succeed in pushing some speech-restricting bill through the Congress, chances are it “would probably be struck down by the courts. “Viewpoint-based” allocations of public subsidies are generally unconstitutional [. . . .].” Eugene Volokh, over at the most excellent Volokh Conspiracy, discusses the ramifications of such legislation.

I should think a little something like the first amendment might cause some problems here. What idiocy.

Should I also mention that Hunter has made the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s most recent list (9/18/07) of the most corrupt members of Congress? Why not.

* Admittedly, the Iranian people have a point in complaining about how their president was treated at Columbia. Couldn't Bollinger have waited to lambast A. M. at least until after M. A. had spoken, or even the following day? We'd have had right fits if the same had occurred to Bush while at home, much less overseas. Remember how even Charlie Rangel got into a right state after Hugo Chavez made his ridiculous comments about Bush and "the devil" at the UN?