Blago gets six-figure book advance

Dunno how much of a tell-all former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich will pen, but I actually am curious.

It’s supposed to focus on the eventual tapping of Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

That said, there’s a lot he COULD talk about.

What did Bobby Rush say behind the scenes?

How up to his eyes in money was Jesse Jackson III in chasing Blago’s nod?

And, at least circumspectly, since Pat Fitzgerald seems no closer to mounting Blago’s head on his prosecutorial wall, what will Blago tell us about that?

Frankly, I think Fitz is looking more overrated all the time.

A different take on Blago impeachment

Is Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich being railroaded, or close to it, in his Illinois Senate impeachment? Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson says yes, and has some persuasive arguments.

Is Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich about to be impeached on grounds of loopiness, obnoxiousness and a bad haircut? Apparently so. ,,,

(I)t is unclear to me what else Blagojevich has done that a duly constituted jury would find illegal. … Unfortunately for the governor, the Illinois Senate is not bound by the strict rules of evidence and testimony that constrain a criminal court.

Plus, as Robinson adds, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has asked the state senate to stay away from possible witnesses in any Blago trial.

Oh, speaking of that? Remember that “second round” of taped conversations Fitz said – about two months ago – that he would release?

Haven’t seen or heard a thing about that recently, have we?

Methinks Fitz has a weak case and that's part of why he doesn't want the Illinois Senate calling witnesses.

More proof Fitz running a bluff on Blago?

Chicago's already-behaloed U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, has asked for a 90-day extensio on an attempt to return an indictment against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

I hope he doesn't get it. I could maybe give him 60 days instead of the normal 30, but no more.

Put up or shut up, Fitz.

I predict no Fitzmas for Fitz!

In other words, Patrick Fitzgerald will be no closer to having the head of Rod Blagojevich above his fireplace mantle by Christmas Day. In fact, I predict the “stay tuned” for more comment he made when he arrested Blago will have no “more” revealed to us by Christmas. Ditto for Barack Obama’s review of staff contacts with Blago, which he is likely to try to bury by announcing no earlier than late Tuesday.

I’ve blogged before that I think he has weak hole cards in this game of seven card stud; now, as noted yesterday, Willie Brown agrees. And, the former San Francisco mayor, who knows something about politics, has talked with Blago recently.

What’s crystallized more in my mind in the last 24 hours is the likelihood of some backdoor Fitz-Obama connection.

The officially authorized Obama leak to George Stephanopoulos is what started the train of thought.

If Obama has no problem leaking via a back door, to prepare the way for the official repoart on his campaign’s contacts with Blago that he will bury right before Christmas, yet publically honor Fitz’s “cone of silence” request, then I figured something is probably up.

Obama is likely cooperating with Fitz in some way as to what he can turn up.

Fitz, in turn, is hoping he can “roll” somebody, anybody, who will then roll Blago. But, I’m thinking that the “appreciation” Stephanopoulos said Blago’s chief of staff, John Harris, mentioned to Rahm Emanuel, probably wasn’t very specific, or Fitz wouldn’t be trying to run a weak bluff in liar’s poker.

And, the judge who set Blago’s bail at less than 5 grand must have felt the same way.

So, Fitz? Put up or shut up. Why don’t you go back to indicting Karl Rove in the Plame leak instead.

As for Blago, everybody calling him “dumb” is surely underestimating his political acumen.

Update: Fitz’s nabbing an Indian fundraiser with connections to both Blago and Obama does not fundamentally change my assessment. In fact, it somewhat reinforces it.

I am Blago, hear me roar

I mean, from Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s point of view, why would you say anything other than what he did — “I’m staying on.”

First, any yet-unrevealed cards by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald may turn out to be a pack of cards, as much as anything. In fact, I still haven’t seen anything that would indicate Fitz does have that much stronger of a hand in his down cards in this drawn-out seven-card stud.

Second, he knows that with his lawyer’s promise he won’t appoint anybody to Obama’s vacant Senate seat, the Illinois Legislature has less pressure on him. An impeachment motion by the Illinois House, followed by state Senate trial, probably won’t get done before June.

Third, if Fitz takes him to trial, what if Blago seeks a jury trial? His lawyers could get creative in seek out “a jury of his peers.” Try to put, say, Emil Jones Jr or Rahm Emanuel on a jury?

Fourth, as for stepping aside temporarily, as the state constitution allows, that would come off as a look of guilt in the court of public opinion. See the third point, above.

In other words, not only will we not see Fitzmas, I would not even count on the Fitz of July.

Irony, hypocrisy alerts and MSLBs reverse spinning on Obama-Blago

MSLBs contribute to two-party duopoly gamesmanship on semi-legitimate issue

The irony and hypocrisy alerts? Former Karl Rove lawyer (in Pat Fitzgerald’s Plamegate investigation) telling the Wall Street Journal Barack Obama should just blow off Fitzgerald’s request that he remain silent until next week on the full scope of his staff’s contact with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s alleged attempt to auction off an appointment to Obama’s former Senate seat.

The irony, at least, is in Ruskin’s former connection with Fitz.

But, Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen and Media Matters’ Jameson Foser doth protest too much, especially Benen.

Benen mentions the irony of Luskin commenting on the case, as well as Wiseman’s hypocrisy for not identifying Luskin’s background. But, he fails to note that Luskin was NOT the only lawyer Wiseman quoted. Long-time Democratic insider lawyer Stanley M. Brand had the same opinion as Luskin. (Insert “bipartisanship alert” worry here.)

So, Steve, especially, and Jameson, whose irony, or hypocrisy, is actually being gored? Or, when the critique is almost as bad as what is being critiqued, perhaps you need to start over?

In other words, this is just more gamesmanship by a couple of spokesmen for the left-hand side of the two-party duopoly. And, it’s why I don’t contribute to these folks.

That said, there’s other problems with the story from a journalistic point of view.

First, does it really take three reporters to do a story that brief?

Second, and of more concern, Steno Sue Schmidt is one of the other two reporters.

Anyway, just because it's an ironic observation on Steve’s part, and even though the Journal was shoddy in not identifying Luskin, doesn't mean that Luskin's — and Brand’s — observation still isn't true.

I mean, Blago’s been under some sort of investigation for two years now, and is already lawyered up. As if he’s not already tailoring his story.

And, Benen and Foser also overlook the fact that Just.Another.Politician™ had the chance to comment right away, with full disclosure, and chose not to.

Obama - get back to be in a week on Blago

President-elect Obama says that Pat Fitzgerald has asked him to wait until next week to release an internal review of what contacts Obama's staff did or did not have with Illnois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's staff.

Now, WHY does Fitz want Obama to wait a week if his staff did nothing inappropriate? Is this because, whether or not the Chicago Tribune is to blame, Fitz just doesn't have quite as strong a case as he'd like us to believe?

Blago will not roll over easily, and Fitz knows that. And, if Blago does go down, he'll do his best to take others with him.

So, what Blago cards does Fitz still have to play?

I would have to say I at least partially agree with Carrie Johnson’s analysis of the Blagosphere (that’s my name for it) so far.

Pat Fitzgerald has giving us a sort of Seurat, his pointillist dot-splattering, and invited us to look at it from his angle, and see the picture of soliciting bribes.

But, maybe we’re using the wrong analogy. Maybe Fitz is like one of those 1970s fundamentalist preachers who claimed to hear Satanic “backward masking” in all sorts of rock music, but got his listeners to “hear this” only by reading them aloud what he said they should “expect” to hear when he spun a piece of vintage vinyl backward.

Maybe Fitz has been psychologically priming us, a lot. And trying to get some people to “roll” by doing that.

Or, let’s look at this from another angle.

We know Fitz hasn’t yet produced all the tapes he has.

But does he have a lot more, or is he trying to run a bluff?

Only until we see the full deal will we know what, speaking along the lines of the intelligence world, is “actionable” as far as what Blago has allegedly done.

Also, don’t forget Fitz isn’t perfect.

I’m not saying there was partisanship involved, but, for various reasons, he didn’t go after Karl Rove along with Scooter Libby, right? Was it because he couldn’t roll Rove easily enough?

As dumb as Blago gives the appearance of being, I don’t think he’s easily rollable.