Now here's a piece of really stupid journalism from the Times -- your Times, not mine (USA!):
Fox News Chicago reported that Mr Emanuel, a Chicago politician who won the Illinois governor's former Congressional seat, may have been captured on FBI wire-taps discussing the fate of Mr Obama's vacated US Senate seat with Gov Rod Blagojevich.
The TV station said Mr Emanuel had "multiple conversations" with Mr Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to "sell" the open Senate seat for a cabinet post or lucrative top foundation job, and his chief of staff. The report said the governor was given a list of Senate candidates acceptable to Mr Obama.
Because the FBI was secretly taping Gov Blagojevich in recent weeks, Mr Emanuel's conversations may have been recorded, Fox News Chicago said.
Any tape-recordings of the newly appointed White House chief of staff speaking to Gov Blagojevich about Mr Obama's former Senate seat would prove an acute embarrassment to the incoming Obama Administration, even if no illegal deals were discussed, and could even force Mr Emanuel's resignation.
Okay, let's see here:
1. Emanuel may have been "captured" (!) on tape talking to the govenor. Well first of all, he may have been, but he may not have been. And if he was, is this automatically corrupt? Obviously not. There are any number of above-the-board conversations Emanuel or any Obama representative could have had with Blago or one of his subordinates. So it may be that Emanuel is "captured" on tape doing nothing at all out of the ordinary, having the kind of conversation politicians have regularly.
2. The governor was given a list of candidates "acceptable" to Obama. Okay...and what if this included, y'know, the five or six names that everyone agreed were the names in the hopper in the first place? And "acceptable" is one of those loaded words, making it sound like Obama was absolutely limiting the choice to this list. I can tell you from my years of reporting that things rarely turn out to be this simple and clean. Any pol in Obama's position would far more likely "suggest." The point is conveyed.
3. "Multiple conversations"...Now that, if true, could be potentially troubling. But again it would depend on what was said.
4. "Any" tape recordings would prove "an acute embarrassment"? Well, no. What about tape recordings on which Emanuel did nothing wrong?
Some of these things could be true, but this is just a piece of innuendo-laden trash. And this brings me to an important point.
Let's say I'm right, and Emanuel (or someone) had an above-board conversation or two with either the governor or one of his people. We will likely never have solid proof that it was above-board. There is a very good jurisprudential reason for this. Prosecutors can't release whatever tapes they want to release.
Think of it this way. If Patrick Fitzgerald does have such exculpatory material on tape, why couldn't he decide that the national interest in this matter is compelling enough that he should just release the tape and let us hear for ourselves that nothing bad happened? Because prosecutors are prohibited from doing so. Under federal law, a prosecutor can release only portions of federal wiretapped conversations that are relevant to prosecution, and even then only in particular circumstances -- i.e., to lay out a complaint, get an indictment, prosecute the case.
It would be illegal for any prosecutor to decide what material he might make public based on what he deems to be the political situation at the time. And quite rightly so. Imagine unscrupulous prosectuors having such power over the course of political events.
Prosecutors can't give a "clean bill of health." They can only prosecute. Fitzgerald came as close as he's allowed to come under federal law by saying what he said at his press conference announcing the complaint, that he had no evidence of wrongdoing against anyone other than the two accused.
And if Fitzgerald has Emanuel or any Obama party on tape discussing a flat-out deal? Well, I believe for starters that might well have been mentioned in the complaint, as the allegation about Jesse Jackson Jr's emissary was. I can't figure out why it would have been left out.
All this probably means that in the end, it's just going to be Obama's word on what happened on his staff's part. Maybe Fitzgerald's office can find a way within the law to back him up, if the facts warrant it. But likely not. It's good news I guess for right-wing paranoid fantasists. But it's the law, and it's the way it is.
