The Obama transition has released their internal review of contacts with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, conducted by Greg Craig. Among the more significant elements is the revelation that Patrick Fitzgerald‘s office interviewed the President-elect, his Adviser Valerie Jarrett, and incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. I have several thoughts about this, the first being that the allegation that Blagojevich was trying to sell his Senate seat may be the weakest part of the criminal complaint against him. It seems more likely to me that the U.S. Attorney’s office’s aim in interviewing Obama, Jarrett, and Emanuel would be to find out if there’s any possible evidence that Blagojevich actually solicited some kind of quid-pro-quo from Obama’s office. As it stands, the only thing we know for certain is that Blagojevich allegedly talked about exploiting his authority to appoint a new senator for personal gain, we don’t know if he actually solicited any offers.
The second observation is that several reporters and media outlets accused the Obama team of a lack of transparency and of hiding behind Fitzgerald’s request that they not release the report. The interviews were conducted the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th, days after the transition announced they would not be releasing the the internal report at Fitzgerald’s request. It is now pretty clear that the reason for the delay was legit: Fitzgerald was conducting interviews with members of the transition team, including Obama. (Emptywheel has a clear timeline of the scandal.)
The review found that Jarrett, Obama and Axelrod did not have contact with Blagojevich. The only person who did was Emanuel, between November 6-8. The report states unequivocally: “Mr. Emanuel and the Governor did not discuss a cabinet position, 501c(4), a private sector position for the Governor or any other personal benefit for the Governor.”
There was one exchange between Jarrett and Tom Balanoff, the head of the Illinois chapter of the SEIU, that will probably draw some attention. They apparently discussed Blagojevich’s desire to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, and how it was never going to happen. The review states this conversation was not linked to providing any benefit to Blagojevich for picking the candidate of Obama’s choice — in fact, the review said that there was merely a general list of candidates, and that Obama himself did not express a preference. This is consistent with a later account in the report, which holds that a Blagojevich aide purporting to speak on his behalf reached out to an Obama family friend, Dr. Eric Whitaker, in order to gauge Obama’s preference, apparently to no avail. The report states that Obama told Whitaker he “had no interest in dictating the result of the selection process, and he would not do so, either directly or indirectly through staff or others.”
The conversation between Jarrett and Balanoff is likely to attract attention because of Blagojevich’s alleged effort, detailed in the criminal complaint, to be compensated with a high paid position at the SEIU affiliated Change to Win organization (Change to Win denies they were a party to this idea). According to the transition’s report, nothing about this came up in the exchange between Jarret and Balanoff. However, reporters and others will likely note that Jarrett spoke to Balanoff on November 7, in between the time that Emanuel was purported to be in contact with Blagojevich (Nov 6-8) and on the day that Blagojevich himself allegedly expressed interest in both the SEIU position and an appointment to HHS in a conference call with advisers.
This was an internal review. I think it’s fair to be skeptical of politicians’ ability to be forthcoming about ethical or legal wrongdoing. But It’s important to view this report in the context of an ongoing investigation of Blagojevich in which the lead prosecutor has gone out of his way not to insinuate wrongdoing on Obama’s behalf. There’s also little reason to lie: if the U.S. Attorney’s office has evidence of malfeasance on the part of the transition it will come out. The facts that we currently have do not support an assumption of wrongdoing on Obama’s part. In some ways though, the media has painted themselves into a corner. They’ve been all but promising a great scandal for weeks, retroactively justifying bad reporting by claiming the Obama transition “handled the press poorly,” and engaging in elaborate fantasies of how this whole thing might end. Given all that, this report is likely to fuel more speculation than it silences, if only because no one likes being wrong.
— A. Serwer
