On a sort of related note, The Hill has noticed that “Rahm is still wearing two hats.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the…..12-22.html

Thanks for the link to the Sun-Times transcripts. I think it helps to keep these conversations grounded, since we do have a tendency to get carried away by our speculation. Would it be worth compiling a basic documents page, both for this and for the other scandals and cases EW tracks?

I’m not volunteering or anything. I know it’s lame, to say, hey, somebody else really ought to do this …

By design? By Fitz constraints? By “no smoke, so no fire”? Fitz knows and he’s not saying…yet.

That said, I’m trying to emphasize that inclusion in or exclusion from this complaint should not be definitive. Fitz has said, clearly, he left out non-monetary conversations. Likely bc they’re not legally easy to charge.

From a legal standpoint, that makes sense.

But from a political standpoint, from Obama’s perspective, it makes no sense to hide something embarrassing, all bc you want to avoid embarrassment. Political scandals don’t work that way.

112. On November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wanted to be able to call “[President-elect Advisor]” and tell President-elect Advisor that “this has nothing to do with anything else we’re working on but the Governor wants to put together a 501(c)(4)” and “can you guys help him. . . raise 10, 15 million.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wanted “[President-elect Advisor] to get the word today,” and that when “he asks me for the Fifth CD thing I want it to be in his head.” (The reference to the “Fifth CD thing” is believed to relate to a seat in the United States House of Representatives from Illinois’ Fifth Congressional District. Prior intercepted phone conversations indicate that ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others were determining whether ROD BLAGOJEVICH has the power to appoint an interim replacement until a special election for the seat can be held.).

113. Also on November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he wants the idea of the 501(c)(4) in President-elect Advisor’s head, but not in connection with the Senate appointment or the congressional seat. Advisor A asked whether the conversation about the 501(c)(4) with President-elect Advisor is connected with anything else. ROD BLAGOJEVICH replied that “it’s unsaid. It’s unsaid.”

114. Later on November 13, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with Advisor A.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Advisor A to call Individual A and have Individual A pitch the idea of the 501(c)(4) to “[President-elect Advisor].” Advisor A said that, “while it’s not said this is a play to put in play other things.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH responded, “correct.” Advisor A asked if this is “because we think there’s still some life in [Senate Candidate 1] potentially?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said, “not so much her, but possibly her. But others.”

I think this suggests that Blago was delusional–trying to make more out of the House seat than he had in his shand.

That said, it’s fairly well established by now that Rahm wants a placeholder in his spot so he can return ot the House in one or two terms and, eventually, have a shot at the Speaker position. So it’s clear that Blago believed he could help Rahm get that, and that Blago believed RAhm valued that (which he does).

Though I will say this–delusional as this is, there are two reasons to take it seriously. First, bc Blago clearly sees it as a ploy, part of a bigger game. From the legal standpoint, BLAGO took this seriously, whether or not Rahm did. So why not reveal it?

The other thing, though, is the suspicion that Rahm wants to get away with hiding his desire to put a placeholder in place and then return (triumphantly!!!) to the House to take the 3rd most powerful position in the Country.

He’s entitled to his desire. But my suspicion is that he’s hiding a perfectly legal (alberit slimy and embarrassing) ploy to hide his real goals with the COS position and the House position. And, in doing so, he’s putting the Obama team at risk, bc they’re not coming clean. That’s stupid–it’s putting the ADministration’s goal secondary to Rahm’s personal goals, and I find it reprehensible, if true.

And because

http://blogs.suntimes.com/swee…..gibbs.html

“Obama’s Greg Craig, Robert Gibbs briefing on Blagojevich internal report. Transcript

[snip]
Q Okay. And the other question: In the section on Rahm, you said Mr. Emanuel had one or two telephone calls with Governor Blagojevich.

MR. CRAIG (?): Right.

Q Is there a reason you can’t be more specific whether it was more than one?

MR. CRAIG (?): There is a reason, and that is that Rahm Emanuel says he had one or two, and he’s not confident whether it was just one or whether there was another one as well.

Q Okay.

MR. CRAIG (?): So we’re accurately reflecting — and this is what — by the way, what the U.S. attorney got also from Rahm — we’re accurately reflecting the facts as Rahm knows them to be.

But he also — the significant thing is that if there were two, it doesn’t make any difference to the result that I’m most interested in, as to whether or not there was anything inappropriate that was discussed, because Mr. Emanuel’s very clear as to what the topics of the discussion were, and he is very clear that there was no discussion of a Senate — of a seat in the Cabinet, there was no discussion of a 501(c)(4) or a private-sector position or any other personal benefit to the governor in exchange for the Senate appointment. He’s very clear on that.