Eric Holder omitted Blagojevich link from questionnaire

[Denny Crane]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/12/obama-richard-1.html

Now, feds probe Gov. Richardson of Obama Cabinet for 'pay-to-play'

It seems that Illinois' legally challenged Gov. Rod Blagojevich is not the only close Barack Obama associate and Democratic governor being investigated by the feds for possibly selling government business in return for campaign contributions.

New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson, who is the newly named Secretary of Commerce in Obama's about-to-be Cabinet, is also being investigated by a federal grand jury in his home state for possibly steering state bond business from the New Mexico Financial Authority toward David Rubin, a significant campaign contributor, according to an NBC News report, among others.



NBC's Lisa Myers reports that two former state officials say they've recently been questioned by a federal grand jury specifically about allegations that Richardson or aides pushed state business worth nearly $1.5 million in fees toward CDR Financial Products in 2004. The company is headquartered in Beverly Hills.

This was about the same time as CDR's founder, Rubin, donated $100,000 to two of Richardson's political action committees; mainly it appears to cover expenses of the governor and his staff at the Democratic Party's National Convention in Boston that summer.

Rubin also donated another $29,000 to Richardson's unsuccessful presidential campaign this year and last.
The probe is part of a broad national federal exploration of "pay-to-play," in which government officials reap financial or other benefits in return for state business.

Richardson has ignored reporters' questions on the federal investigation, while a spokesman says he's confident the relationship was entirely appropriate and the governor expects state employees to cooperate fully with federal investigators. A CDR spokesman also said the transactions were appropriate.

An Obama transition official has refused to comment on whether the president-elect knew of the investigation before he appointed Richardson to his new Cabinet position.

Obama has called Richardson "my great friend" and said the governor would be a key member of his administration's economic team. Richardson, the first Latino in Obama's Cabinet, described himself the same way.

On Tuesday, the Obama transition team issued a five-page report of its own involvement with Blagojevich, who's charged in a federal criminal complaint with demanding money for state aid, business and his appointment of Obama's Senate replacement.

The Obama team report completely absolved the Obama team of any wrongdoing, as the Ticket reported here. But Obama was already on vacation when the report was issued and has said he won't be talking further about the matter. The president-elect's main Blagojevich contact, new White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel also happened to be unreachable on a vacation in Africa.

 

[barfo]

Breaking news. LOL

Interesting - but seemingly unrelated to the topic at hand.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting - but seemingly unrelated to the topic at hand.

barfo

It must suck to have a couple of scandals before even taking the oath of office.

It's a shame, too, because I actually like Richardson.

But it sounds like the Democrats run things in New Mexico like they do in Illinois.

Speaking of polls, Republicans top this list of corrupt politicians:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/24/naughty.politician/index.html

My bad, they don't.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh yeah, Obama hiding out in Hawaii and Emanuel hiding out in Africa is slick.

 

[ly_yng]

The quote is correct, as are the various quotes of sources from the Obama that Emanuel had no contact with Blago, except to tell him he was taking a position with Obama's administration. Something he'd have to do so Blago could fill his seat, too.

If you stare really hard, you can see Obama offering Blagoiovich a bribe!

 

[Denny Crane]

If you stare really hard, you can see Obama offering Blagoiovich a bribe!

Who's accusing Obama of offering a bribe?

 

[Minstrel]

Did the poll ask about Rahm or Obama's lies?

No, it wasn't a push-poll. It simply asked whether people approved of how Obama was doing during his transition period. Presumably, if most Americans believed he was lying, his approval ratings wouldn't have gone up over the past month as they in fact did.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, it wasn't a push-poll. It simply asked whether people approved of how Obama was doing during his transition period. Presumably, if most Americans believed he was lying, his approval ratings wouldn't have gone up over the past month as they in fact did.

Or instead of going up 3%, they might have gone up 10%.

 

[barfo]

It must suck to have a couple of scandals before even taking the oath of office.

It's a shame, too, because I actually like Richardson.

Well, if you like him you might want to consider that he's not necessarily guilty. Not everyone who is investigated is guilty. We don't know what, if any, evidence they have against him. It might be as flimsy as what you've got on Obama. Although I'd guess it probably isn't.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, if you like him you might want to consider that he's not necessarily guilty. Not everyone who is investigated is guilty. We don't know what, if any, evidence they have against him. It might be as flimsy as what you've got on Obama. Although I'd guess it probably isn't.

barfo

No matter what, he's stained. Where does the buck stop, anyway? And who said that...

 

[Minstrel]

Or instead of going up 3%, they might have gone up 10%.

If that's the case, it means lying isn't that important to the US public. Serious problems tend to cause approval ratings to drop, especially when a politician is already so high (so has many more possible people to disappoint than people to convince in his favour).

If lying causes Obama to go up in the polls 3 points as opposed to 10 points (which is a bit silly, since he was already at a pretty historic 78%...there's really not that much upside left at that point, in a practical sense), then all it says is that lying is now an acceptable part of being President.

I think that's a stretch, though. It's much more plausible that the vast majority of Americans simply disagree with you about Obama lying.

 

[Denny Crane]

If that's the case, it means lying isn't that important to the US public. Serious problems tend to cause approval ratings to drop, especially when a politician is already so high (so has many more possible people to disappoint than people to convince in his favour).

If lying causes Obama to go up in the polls 3 points as opposed to 10 points (which is a bit silly, since he was already at a pretty historic 78%...there's really not that much upside left at that point, in a practical sense), then all it says is that lying is now an acceptable part of being President.

I think that's a stretch, though. It's much more plausible that the vast majority of Americans simply disagree with you about Obama lying.

Wow, three assumptions on your part, all wrong.

1) That lying would cause his polls to go down - they didn't ask the question in the poll now, did they?
2) That people find lying is acceptable part of being president - they didn't ask that question, either.
3) That Americans disagree with me about Obama lying.

But hey, I'm not the guy who ran for president promising transparency.

 

[Minstrel]

Wow, three assumptions on your part, all wrong.

1) That lying would cause his polls to go down - they didn't ask the question in the poll now, did they?

Again, it wasn't a push-poll...they weren't trying to influence the results by phrasing an opinion (Obama lied) as a fact. They were measuring how many Americans approved of him. If Americans felt Obama lied, they'd likely approve of him less.

2) That people find lying is acceptable part of being president

That wasn't an assumption of mine. That was an assumption of yours--implicit in believing that it is possible Americans believe he lied, yet approve of him more.

3) That Americans disagree with me about Obama lying.

That's not an assumption of mine, either. That simply seems like the likeliest explanation for Obama's approval ratings rising over the past month, a time period in whuch you believe Obama has been lying, or exposed as a liar. If Americans agreed with you, one would expect that to be reflected in how many people approve of him.

 

[MARIS61]

It's very tough to explain away how a guy asking everyone for bribes talked to Obama's pick for Chief of Staff 21 times and Rahm couldn't figure out what was going on or blow the whistle.

Huge assumption for you to say he didn't didn't figure out what was going on and blow the whistle.

Obviously, someone tipped off the FBI. Could have been Rahm.

 

[Denny Crane]

Huge assumption for you to say he didn't didn't figure out what was going on and blow the whistle.

Obviously, someone tipped off the FBI. Could have been Rahm.

Blago was under investigation for months prior - for hiring practices and other assorted illegal and unethical activities.

 

[Denny Crane]

Again, it wasn't a push-poll...they weren't trying to influence the results by phrasing an opinion (Obama lied) as a fact. They were measuring how many Americans approved of him. If Americans felt Obama lied, they'd likely approve of him less.

The bolded part simply is simply not true. They could have asked "does the unfolding Blagojevich scandal alter your view of Obama?" which isn't a push poll. But I suspect you were fine with all the "push polling" done during the election and the past 8 years.

That wasn't an assumption of mine. That was an assumption of yours--implicit in believing that it is possible Americans believe he lied, yet approve of him more.

The lying didn't happen in a vaccuum. He appointed Hillary Clinton as Secy. of State - that might have been good for a 20 point bump in it's own right. They didn't ask that question, either, did they?

That's not an assumption of mine, either. That simply seems like the likeliest explanation for Obama's approval ratings rising over the past month, a time period in whuch you believe Obama has been lying, or exposed as a liar. If Americans agreed with you, one would expect that to be reflected in how many people approve of him.

I don't know that his lying would affect my own "approval" of Obama. Though I do think it's not a very good start for the guy who promised to be much better than that.

 

[Minstrel]

They could have asked "does the unfolding Blagojevich scandal alter your view of Obama?" which isn't a push poll.

Yes, they could have asked that, but that would be a different poll. Obama's approval rating rising during this Blagojevich scandal suggests one of two things to me:

1. Americans don't think he lied, thus it hasn't hurt him
2. Americans may or may not think he lied but don't care, thus it hasn't hurt him

Considering that it seems like clear evidence of deception tends to be something Americans care about, I feel #2 is less likely. But it is possible.

The lying didn't happen in a vaccuum. He appointed Hillary Clinton as Secy. of State - that might have been good for a 20 point bump in it's own right.

When you're already sitting at historical approval margins, a 10 or 20 point jump is impossible for practical purposes, even if it is mathematically possible. He's not going to convert almost every die-hard conservative into a supporter (as a 20% jump would have required). No candidate in this political environment is ever going to touch 98% approval. I appreciate the problem of confounding factors, but considering he had very little upside left in approval ratings, I think any major negative would have more than washed out any major positive, not vice versa.

I don't know that his lying would affect my own "approval" of Obama.

Then it's not a very important issue.

 

[Denny Crane]

Salon, not known as a particularly centrist or right leaning site:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/12/19/rahm/

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif] What's Obama hiding about Blagojevich?

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Probably nothing. But by mishandling the scandal, his team has allowed questions to be raised where there were none. [/FONT] By Joe Conason
[FONT=times new roman, times, serif]Dec. 19, 2008 |
While the Blagojevich scandal so far has exonerated rather than implicated Barack Obama and his staff, the president-elect's camp has made some unnecessary mistakes in response. Inflated and distorted by hostile critics, those mistakes have risked creating public suspicion where there need be none.

When a scandal breaks in the media, the most important aspect of any political response is clarity. Vagueness provokes distrust, which is only intensified by [video=youtube;tT9_ZIUSLhY] to reporters' inquiries. Innocent fumbles create an appearance of dishonesty or concealment, even when there is none -- and inevitably, political opponents distort that false appearance even further to their own advantage.

The impulse to create distance between Obama and Blagojevich was understandable, given their common political roots in Chicago, but was excessive in its zeal and haste. By seeming to suggest that there had been no contact with the Illinois governor about appointing a new senator to replace him, Obama and his aides set up a scenario that could only be punctured by subsequent facts.

Indeed, Obama had every right and reason to be concerned with who might replace him in the Senate -- and there was certainly nothing wrong with him or anyone who works for him engaging in discussions of that matter with Blagojevich. But as the scandal emerged, all such contacts suddenly seemed to carry a taint -- an impression that Obama seemed to affirm. Reflexively but wrongly, he behaved as if no such discussions had occurred, without quite saying so.

So when the Chicago Tribune reported that Rahm Emanuel had in fact discussed the Senate appointment with Blagojevich or his aides on nearly two dozen occasions, it meant trouble. There is no indication that the incoming White House chief of staff engaged in any illegal or unethical conduct. There is certainly no indication that those contacts were "inappropriate." But the revelation encouraged every insinuation that Obama and his staff are somehow obscuring the real nature and extent of their relationship with the disgraced governor.

This political problem arose in part because Obama was so eager to appear purer than any politician can actually be. In his initial statements, he sounded as if he was trying to say that he knew nothing at all about the selection of his successor. "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening," he told the press, and refused to elaborate.

That remark clarified nothing; today it seems like obfuscation at best and prevarication at worst. Nobody is likely to believe that Emanuel spoke more than 20 times with Blagojevich or the governor's aide John Harris without informing Obama about those conversations. To insist that he had "no contact" when his top aide was involved in so many contacts is precisely the kind of parsing that undermines confidence.

Yet there should be no need for parsing, because the facts are entirely on Obama's side. To date, the evidence confirms Obama's assurance that he and his staff did nothing "inappropriate." Indeed, he may be unique among Chicago politicians, in that he has been exonerated of wrongdoing not just by a United States attorney but by the alleged criminal, who curses him roundly on tape for unwillingness to "pay for play."

Moreover, the repeated complaint by the press and the Republicans that Obama and his aides are unwilling to answer questions or release their internal investigation is simply unfair. As the president-elect and his spokespersons have explained more than once, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has urged them to be circumspect, if not utterly silent, while he continues his investigation. Yet the snarking has continued even after Fitzgerald released his own statement confirming that request.

Still, there are legitimate questions that need to be answered -- and it is to be hoped that answers will be forthcoming next week, when the Obama team has promised to release its own report on the Blagojevich matter. Under the direction of incoming White House counsel Greg Craig that report is already complete, and found that neither Obama nor his staff had done anything untoward in dealing with Blagojevich.

Presumably that document will include a timeline and summary of all the contacts between Emanuel (and any other Obama representatives) and Blagojevich (or his office). Beyond that basic information, journalists are certain to ask whether, for instance, the president-elect actually changed his mind about promoting top aide Valerie Jarrett for his former Senate seat, who once led his list of "acceptable" nominees, and why. Did resistance from Blagojevich, who seems cold to "Senate Candidate 1" in the federal wiretaps, have anything to do with it?

A thorough report and a press conference where Obama answers those questions fully and candidly ought to put the Blagojevich scandal to rest, as far as he is concerned. But as president there will be other scandals (and pseudo-scandals) in his future. He seems much too smart not to learn what this episode's errors can teach him.
[/FONT]

 

[barfo]

You realize that article is about you?

Inflated and distorted by hostile critics, those mistakes have risked creating public suspicion where there need be none.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You realize that article is about you?



barfo

My gripe is about the transparency thing. You do realize the article affirms that Obama already has a problem with the truth?

 

[barfo]

My gripe is about the transparency thing. You do realize the article affirms that Obama already has a problem with the truth?

No, I don't realize that.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You're right. That was in another thread. This one is about Eric Holder.

Fine choice. I'm sure he'll know where all the bodies are buried and make sure nobody finds them.

 

[Denny Crane]

Speaking of Holder... and where did Obama find these guys, and did he spend more than 5 minutes vetting them?

http://washingtonindependent.com/22858/eric-holder-the-2-million-plus-ag-nominee

Eric Holder: the $2 Million Nominee

Here’s an interesting tidbit from yesterday’s Legal Times: Attorney General-designate Eric Holder last week revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he earned more than $2.1 million in 2008 as a partner at Covington & Burling. That’s even better than the average partner at the firm, who earns a measly $1.175 million. And it soars high above the $186,000 salary Holder would get if he’s confirmed as attorney general.

2009 is projected to look even better, even if Holder is no longer at the firm, Legal Times reports. Holder expects to rake in $2.5 million in deferred compensation, some other work he did at the firm this year, and a severance payment of $1.3 million. (That’s severance for quitting?!)

Holder listed his net worth at $5.7 million.

How did Holder make all this money at the firm? By representing huge corporations when they got into trouble. As I’ve reported before, Holder’s clients at Covington included the National Football League, the pharmaceutical giant Merck, the big banana Chiquita Brands, UBS Financial Services and Bank of America. He’d also registered as a lobbyist for Global Crossing and other companies.

Having earned millions of dollars defending the world’s wealthiest corporations doesn’t make Eric Holder unqualified to be attorney general; one could argue that having been both a prosecutor and a defender, he knows how both sides work and can be particularly effective.

On the other hand, it does underscore the circles he travels in and who he might be inclined to do favors for in the future.

I didn’t originally pay much attention to Holder’s involvement in the Marc Rich pardon, having taken his excuse that he just wasn’t paying all that much attention himself on face value; but I was wrong. As Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston at the NY Times and Glenn Greenwald at Salon, among others, have all pointed out, Holder was far more directly involved in directing and encouraging Rich’s lawyer, Jack Quinn, in his efforts to win the unprecedented pardon for his fugitive client. If Quinn hadn’t been a wealthy, well-connected, highly influential Washington Democratic lawyer and friend, Holder would have been unlikely to suggest him for the role of Rich’s lawyer, and then make repeated expressions of support and efforts on his behalf, as George Lardner, Jr. a former Washington Post reporter and now an associate at the Center for the Study of the Presidency documented back in November in a NY Times op-ed.

Like so many other lawyers in Washington, Quinn was a “public servant” — as a lawyer to Al Gore, and then Clinton’s White House counsel. (Holder reportedly talked to Quinn about his desire to be AG to Gore at that time.) And like so many others in Washington, after making those critical contacts he abandoned public service and took them to the new lobbying firm he created in 1996.

Greenwald, who apparently still supports Holder’s nomination, put it this way: “Eric Holder swung his doors wide open for Marc Rich because Jack Quinn was a highly influential power-broker in Democratic Party circles and was a former and quite possibly future colleague of Holder’s.” Richard Cohen of the Washington Post adds about the not-so-tiny-mistake: “It suggests that Holder, whatever his other qualifications, could not say no to power.”

Maybe we should just brush all of this off and accept that this is how Washington works. But we’ve seen the damage done by a series of attorneys general over the last eight years who let politics influence the Justice Department. If Americans voted for change, then should the Marc Rich incident — and the apparent sway held by wealth, power and influence over Holder, who has been a part of that world for the past eight years at his law firm — be swept away so easily?

 

[MARIS61]

Having earned millions of dollars defending the world’s wealthiest corporations doesn’t make Eric Holder unqualified to be attorney general; one could argue that having been both a prosecutor and a defender, he knows how both sides work and can be particularly effective.

On the other hand, it does underscore the circles he travels in and who he might be inclined to do favors for in the future.

By this standard we should in the future NEVER put ANY qualified person into a political position.

Clearly we would be better off with a mentally-retarded shut-in who learned the law from watching countless Matlock re-runs.

 

[Denny Crane]

By this standard we should in the future NEVER put ANY qualified person into a political position.

Clearly we would be better off with a mentally-retarded shut-in who learned the law from watching countless Matlock re-runs.

Change!

er...

"change"

 

[ly_yng]

By this standard we should in the future NEVER put ANY qualified person into a political position.

Clearly we would be better off with a mentally-retarded shut-in who learned the law from watching countless Matlock re-runs.

Are you implying that Denny's just angling for a run in 2012?

 

[Denny Crane]

Good news keeps coming in.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1231082hsu1.html

Obama And That Other Ponzi Scheme

President-elect's name may emerge in Norman Hsu fraud trial


DECEMBER 31--As if being linked to one high-profile criminal case weren't enough, President-elect Barack Obama's name may soon pop up in another federal prosecution, this one involving a massive Ponzi scheme (no, the other massive Ponzi scheme). In addition to the Rod Blagojevich pay-for-play probe, Obama could figure in the upcoming fraud trial of Norman Hsu, the disgraced Democratic fundraiser who was charged last year with operating a $60 million pyramid scheme. According to investigators, Hsu, a major Hillary Clinton fundraiser, pressured investors to donate money to political candidates with whom he was aligned. In a letter last week to U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero, Hsu's lawyer, Martin Cohen, requested a 60-day delay in the start of Hsu's trial, scheduled to open January 12 (Cohen cited the "extraordinary level of negative publicity" generated by the recent arrest of alleged Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff). In his December 22 letter, a copy of which you'll find below, Cohen also noted that Hsu was already "notorious for his political activities" and that it was "inevitable" that his client's "connections" to Bill and Hillary Clinton "and other democratic notables--including perhaps the president-elect--will be introduced at trial." Before becoming a key fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, Hsu co-hosted a 2005 California fundraiser for Obama's political action committee and introduced the Illinois Democrat to Marc Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who later joined the Obama campaign's national finance committee. Prosecutors allege that Hsu directed his investors to donate money to specific candidates, and then reimbursed them in violation of federal campaign laws. Unswayed by Cohen's argument, Marrero declined to delay the trial, which will begin a week before Obama's inauguration. (6 pages)