"Rahm Report" Out This Week

By Jeralyn, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:17:34 AM EST
Tags: Rod Blagojevich (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Elect Barack Obama's report on his staff's contacts with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich will be release this week. A chiron on Meet the Press read there were 22 contacts between Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel. George Stephanapoulus says there was one conversation. Politico reports there were four conversations.

Sources also confirm that Emanuel made the case for picking Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett during at least one of the conversations. In the course of that conversation, [Blagojevich Chief of Staff John] Harris asked if in return for picking Jarrett, 'all we get is appreciation, right?' 'Right,' Emanuel responded.

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown spoke to Blagojevich after his arrest and writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: [More...]

I can't go into details, but my impression is that the whole mess started because the governor had been considering appointing a political rival, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, to the Senate so she wouldn't be able to run against him when he went up for re-election in 2010.

Apparently, Obama's people weren't happy about the idea of Madigan coming to Washington, and there were some pretty heated conversations between Blagojevich and Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, which I understand will burn your ears off.

< Innocence Project Requests Investigation of Baltimore Crime Lab | Sunday Shopping Deals >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

"Rahm Report" Out This Week | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why is it that I have this feeling that if (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 07:19:44 PM EST

any Dem leader had the ability to tolerate Blago's unmistakeable lack of ethics flagging in his face and may have even said something stupid in that tolerance, Rahm is a good candidate?

I wonder why Obama and his people (none / 0) (#1)
by tigercourse on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST

weren't keen on Madigan coming to Washington. Jarrett's main qualification for Senator seems to be incompetently managing housing in Chicago.

I think Emanuel could be in trouble. (none / 0) (#2)
by Saul on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST

According to this LINK

I still say Blgo knows enough to make it very uncomfortable for Obama. He was not so truthful when he initially said none of his people had anything to do with Blago concerning who should take his senate seat.

Kind of expected fireworks with Emanuel (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by ruffian on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:42:31 AM EST

at some point in the Obama administration. I like him, but he is such a volatile personality that I thought it was only a matter of time before he said the wrong thing to someone. Thought he would at least last until the inauguration though. I don't think he did anything illegal here, but if it looks like he was pushing a Senate candidate to preserve his own power in the White House, it does not look good.


: From the Yahoo news link (none / 0) (#11)
by ruffian on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:07:47 AM EST

in Saul's post:

Emanuel did contact the governor's office about the appointment and left Blagojevich with the impression that he was pushing Valerie Jarrett, a close Obama friend, so he wouldn't have to compete with her in the White House for Obama's attention, said a person close to Blagojevich. The person was not authorized to talk about the governor's discussions regarding the vacancy and requested anonymity.

Hey, all this came up during the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:58:19 AM EST

campaign and was debunked then. It's old news. The vetting is long over.


what vetting? (none / 0) (#32)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:17:25 PM EST

and this did not come up, nor was it debunked during the campaign.


: turn your snarkmeter on (none / 0) (#41)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:07:44 PM EST

When did he say that? (none / 0) (#6)
by Steve M on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST

See above (none / 0) (#12)
by ruffian on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:08:30 AM EST

I accidently responded to myself instead of you.


My question was (none / 0) (#24)
by Steve M on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST

when did Obama say that "none of his people had anything to do with Blago concerning who should take his senate seat"?


when it first all came out (none / 0) (#33)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:18:53 PM EST

he stated that none of his people/he had no contact with Blago concerning this matter.


: I'd like to see a quote (none / 0) (#40)
by Steve M on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:38:43 PM EST

since I don't believe he said that.

Rahm (none / 0) (#3)
by Joe the carpenter on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM EST

not suggesting anything here, just a question.
What happens to Obama's presidency if there are very questionable dealings this early on? Could he become a lame duck?

Obama reputation rides on this challenge (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Saul on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:39:58 AM EST

Remember, his whole campaign was I am a different type of politician. Little by little we have seen this theory slowly crumble from the primary campaign to now.


some of us (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST

thought it was bullcrap from the beginning.


lol (none / 0) (#8)
by Faust on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:00:49 AM EST

Not even close.

First this "theory" has not "crumbled" as it has been clear to many people (e.g. BTD and many others) that Obama is in point of fact a "typical pol" and that many of his change promises are typical pol "schtick."

Second, it is not at all clear either from the article you linked or any other source that Rahm is going to be in any trouble whatsoever. I for one predict he will come out of this unscathed.

Sure the RNC and slavering journalists hoping for Whitewater 2.0 will pursue this is far as they can drive it but I doubt anything of genuine legal substance will be derived from this.


: lol (none / 0) (#35)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:21:46 PM EST

no, it was clear 4 years ago when he was running in the democratic primary for senate and said he got on the DLC list of members "by accident" that there was nothing new in politics. He has always, IMO, been full of it.

Could he become a lame duck? (none / 0) (#9)
by Faust on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM EST

No.

Next question.


Could this turn him into Bill Clinton, (none / 0) (#10)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:07:31 AM EST

politically, fighting a supercharged right wing from even before his Presidency started?
That seems the real danger.


Any Dem pres would have faced that (none / 0) (#13)
by ruffian on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:13:25 AM EST

It is just the way the Republicans work.


There's only one example of the (none / 0) (#15)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:15:52 AM EST

phenomenon, so it's hard to generalize.
Obama's win thorougly demoralized the Republicans. Let's hope it stays that way.


Thoroughly demoralized? Nope. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Cream City on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM EST

This recharges Republicans -- I am reading about it in my state.

Remember Roe v. Wade. The rise of the major resistance did not precede the decision; it was in reaction to it and other societal change of the '60s and '70s. And that brought us the conservative revolution of the '80s.


What do you mean by "this"? (none / 0) (#30)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:52:35 PM EST

The Blago scandal? If so, you're agreeing with me.


: No, what you said in the comment (none / 0) (#38)
by Cream City on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:50:20 PM EST

to which I replied, i.e., Obama's win.

It won't. (none / 0) (#17)
by tigercourse on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:16:58 AM EST

As long as the public... (none / 0) (#31)
by Thanin on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:52:47 PM EST

keeps blaming republicans for our current financial crisis, it wont matter whether republicans are energized or not.


who? (none / 0) (#19)
by Nasarius on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:35:12 AM EST

Who's their standard-bearer, their candidate for 2012? Mitt Romney? Out of public office since 2006. Sarah Palin? Heh.

This isn't to say that Obama is invulnerable. If he fails to adequately handle the economic crisis, he's in big trouble. But the GOP has no leadership. They have a whole lot of work to do to mount any kind of serious challenge in four years.


: Nationally, who knew who... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by EL seattle on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:22:40 PM EST

... Newt Gingrich was in 1992? Who knew who Newt Gingrich was in 1994?

: Which Republican won (none / 0) (#21)
by oldpro on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:20:38 PM EST

the Iowa caucuses in '08?

I dunno (none / 0) (#25)
by Steve M on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:34:04 PM EST

When Newt Gingrich calculates that he can profit more by criticizing the RNC for attacking Obama, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon himself, I don't think we can exactly call the right wing "supercharged." At least not yet.


Lame (none / 0) (#16)
by Joe the carpenter on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:16:47 AM EST

I hope not, I really hope we dont start his two terms fighting the repubs constant harping on non issues.


What 'very questionable dealings'? (none / 0) (#14)
by Moishele on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM EST

Rahm wanted a certain candidate for his own personal reasons! <GASP!> Everyone knows that never occurs in Washington. <snark>

Was there any quid pro quo? Nope. Did Rahm cease to push for her the minute Obama wanted her elesewhere? Yep.

So what exactly are these 'very questionable dealings'?


: Questionable (none / 0) (#18)
by Joe the carpenter on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM EST

I wrote, " if there are qusetionable dealings?, it was a question, not a statement, sorry for any misconceptions

: OIC (none / 0) (#37)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST

"everyone does it" so it is okay?
First of all, not everyone doesn't do it and it is not okay. It is none of Rahms or Obama's business who replaces them.

HuffPo headline (none / 0) (#20)
by ruffian on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:36:02 AM EST

OBAMA REPORT EXONERATES RAHM

Well, I guess that settles it!!

they investigated themselves and found (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:24:47 PM EST

that they were innocent....jeesh, dubya has nothing on them I guess.


Until the tapes of (none / 0) (#22)
by oldpro on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:22:36 PM EST

Rahm's conversations with Blago become public...with lots of bleeping, of course...


The embarassment factor... (none / 0) (#26)
by EL seattle on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:52:05 PM EST

... might be the worst part of it. But if that blemishes the dream of some sort of "new politics", I don't think it will add anything to the the momemtum the new administration will need to succeed with all of their proposals or changes.

Sample hypothetical transcript excerpt:

Governor A: Tell that lousy piece of s#@& that I want more!

Representative X: He's not part of this process, governor. Besides, the last time he mentioned your name he said you were a cheating lying sack of d&% c@%& who's b%$& more g$#% than a Philadelphia republican.


: Or -- did Rahm say something (none / 0) (#29)
by Cream City on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST

about Jarrett? That could be a major embarrassment to the administration.
We can hope that if he did say something about Jarrett, it was standard politics -- and not misogynistic. (Uh, correction: misogyny is standard politics today . . . but at least Emanuel seems smart enough to have not gone that route.)

Willie, Willie, Willie. Funny (as in (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:58:48 PM EST

humorous) column.