tanbark, I re-read the transcript of the press conference with Craig again and while it’s not clear how he conducted all of his interviews, this is the passage that left me with the impression that at least some of the discussions were conducted through their lawyers:

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

MR. CRAIG: Let me just say that to describe the process that we went through, we asked each individual who we thought might have had some contact or some communication that would be meaningful to, in an orderly way, consult with counsel to advise and assist them in reconstructing any contacts or communications. And that would include checking cell phone records or e-mails. And we inquired about that. And so it’s my belief that we’ve got the information that is required to answer the president-elect’s question. And I think this is the result of that inquiry.

Q So was there any written communication?

MR. CRAIG: I know of none, no.

Q: Okay. And then why did Valerie Jarrett characterize this as a ridiculous proposition?

MR. CRAIG: This was — she thought it was ridiculous for the governor of Illinois to be talking about being appointed to Barack Obama’s Cabinet at a time when he was under investigation, widely reported in the newspapers — under investigation for a variety of problems. And the reason that I believe that she thought it was ridiculous and said so was because that’s what she told her counsel, and that’s what her counsel told me.

####

I think Obama, Craig, and David Axelrod have all been unequivocal in their positions that no deal making took place. Obama went even further and said his staff did nothing inappropriate, and Craig went even further still in his statements, such as this, also from the press conference:

CRAIG: “They [Emanuel and Blago / Harris] discuss a variety of possible candidates. They discuss four or five; there’s actually six names that Rahm submits to the governor for consideration. But as the report says, there was no discussion, with Rahm or the governor or his chief of staff, about a cabinet position, a 501(c)(4) foundation, a private-sector position or any other personal benefit for the governor.”

So those conversations; there was no reason for Rahm to suspect that there was any effort going on, at least with him. And he knew of no other effort with anybody else, to negotiate some quid pro quo in exchange for the Senate appointment.

####

So to answer your second question, yes, I think if there is anything on the tapes that suggests Emanuel was offered, much less entertained, a deal for the Senate seat, he will have some ’splainin to do – and as we’ve seen with Bill Richardson and others, if he has not been totally candid, the President-elect will not hesitate to cut him loose.

That is one of the main reasons I am inclined to believe Emanuel is telling the truth, at least about the Senate seat conversations. Brazenly ambitious though he may be, I simply don’t think he’s that stupid. If he thought there was anything incriminating on the tapes (as opposed to plain embarrassing, like candid opinions about the candidates and cursing up a storm), there was plenty of time for him to bow out for “family reasons” and keep his House seat.

Speaking of the House seat, emptywheel meticulously noted that the internal report does not appear to cover those conversations. I don’t know what to make of that (sloppiness, or something more sinister?), but again – Emanuel could have bailed and remained in his House seat.

If it’s strongly dem, they could just sit on it for a couple of weeks, while the legislature moves on Blago’s impeachment.

At least, I hope they’re wrong. :o)

And Bmaz makes a good point about Holder. It sounds like he lowballed the hell out of how hard he worked on Bubba to get Marc Rich that pardon, and the repubs are going to want to talk about that, and they should.

I’ve been critical of Obama’s appointments. Too many Clinton retreads…

But Leon Panetta at Langley is a good one.

I got that impression from the transcript on Lynne Sweet’s Sun-Times blog that they all talked to Craig through their lawyers for the internal report, not just Jarrett. I’d be curious to know if she told anyone about her encounter with the labor union official (where he mentioned Blago was interested in HHS and she laughed it off) and they decided to talk her out of the Senate seat. It was well known that Blago was under investigation, and the fact that they did not have Obama contact him directly would seem to indicate that they were suspicious of him.
———–

emptywheel:”* Blago told people around about December 3 that “Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call” and those people are now sharing that information with the Sun-Times (note, these people could just as easily be JJJ associates as Blago associates).”

“* Blago told people, after he was arrested but before Obama released his report, that “Back in December Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call” and those people are now sharing it with the Sun-Times (these people would be more likely to be Blago associates, but could still be JJJ associates).

“* Blago has directed people to tell the Sun-Times in the last week or so that “back in December, Rahm called me and said Reid is going to call” and those people are now doing Blago’s bidding.”

I’m hedging my bets and going with one of these three. From the way it’s worded in the Sun-Times piece, it sounds like that particular info came from someone who heard about the call, not someone who actually heard the call. I got that impression with the way the source was cited in the “Rahm is pushing Valerie because he doesn’t want her in the White House” story too.

If Obama wanted JJ Jr. and Cheryle Jackson on the list and Rahm told Craig they were on the list, they had better be included in his taped conversations. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see why they would chance contradicting what’s on the tapes. Better to say nothing, or “I don’t remember,” than to give specifics.