Barack Obama

Obama Admin Backs Bushies On Missing Emails

Zachary Roth | February 23, 2009, 5:27PM

Change we can believe in? Maybe not so much.

The Obama administration is siding with the Bush administration in trying to kill a lawsuit brought by watchdog groups that seeks to gain access to Bush White House emails, reports the Associated Press.

At issue are emails from key periods of the Bush years, including the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak.

In response to the suit brought by two groups, CREW and the National Security Archive, the Bush White House recently said that it had found 14 million of the e-mails and had taken steps to archive others. But the plaintiffs called those steps inadequate.

Now the Obama Justice Department is seeking to have the suit dismissed, just as the Bush DOJ did.

"The new administration seems no more eager than the last" to deal with the issue, Anne Weismann of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told the Associated Press.

The AP adds:

Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government.

The Justice Department "apparently never got the message" from Obama, Blanton said.

Sounds about right.

Barack Obama

Judge: Obama Admin Must Weigh In On US Attorneys Fight By Weds

Zachary Roth | February 19, 2009, 3:55PM

Are things finally coming to a head in the long-running effort to get testimony on the US Attorney firings from key Bush aides?

A federal court has said that the Obama administration must file its brief in the case of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten by next Wednesday, reports Politico.

The administration had asked to have until March 4th to get its position straight.

Miers and Bolten, both top aides to the Bush White House, were subpoenaed by Congress for testimony on the U.S. Attorney firings. President Bush had asserted executive privilege, sending the matter to the courts. Now the Obama administration must decide whether to back Bush's claim.

An executive order issued by the Obama White House on its first full day in office suggests it won't, in the view of some experts.

The issue of Karl Rove's testimony on the firings could also be at stake, since any ruling in the Miers-Bolten case could affect the stand-off over Rove. House Judiciary chair John Conyers has subpoenaed Rove, whose lawyer then kicked the issue over to the Obama White House.

Things are getting interesting...

Roland Burris

Burris Now Admits He Tried To Raise Money For Blago

Zachary Roth | February 17, 2009, 1:18PM

This is getting kind of ridiculous. Roland Burris has now admitted he tried to raise money for Rod Blagojevich, at the request of the former governor's brother.

The Chicago Tribune reports:

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governor's brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.

Burris' latest comments in Peoria Monday night were the first time he has publicly said he was actively trying to raise money for Blagojevich. Previously Burris has left the impression that he always balked at the issue of raising money for the governor because of his interest in the Senate appointment.

In comments to reporters after appearing at a Democratic dinner, the senator several times contradicted his latest under-oath affidavit that he quietly filed with the Illinois House impeachment panel earlier this month. That affidavit was itself an attempt to clean up his live, sworn testimony to the panel Jan. 8, when he omitted his contacts with several Blagojevich insiders.

Here's the transcript of Burris' comments.

Rod Blagojevich

Burris Contradicts Sworn Testimony On Talking To Blago's Office

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 2:03PM

Over the weekend, the Rod Blagojevich mess got even messier.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported on Saturday that Sen. Roland Burris admitted, in a signed affidavit, to having talked with several Blagojevich aides about the open U.S. Senate seat. That admission appears to contradict Burris' sworn testimony last month before the Illinois legislature.

In the affidavit, filed February 5th with a Democratic state lawmaker overseeing the impeachment proceedings, Burris acknowledged that he had talked about the seat to Robert Blagojevich, the governor's brother, as well as several other of the governor's advisers. Those conversations, according to the affidavit, occurred in October and November of last year -- both before and after the seat became available thanks to Barack Obama's presidential election victory. Burris wrote that Robert Blagojevich had asked Burris to make a political contribution to the governor -- which Burris says he did not do.

That appears to contradict Burris' testimony last month in front of state legislators, when he said that the only conversation he had had about the seat with a member of the governor's circle had been over the summer with Lon Monk, a former top aide to Blagojevich. That testimony occurred while Burris was fighting an active campaign to be sworn in as a U.S. senator, after Blagojevich had picked him for the seat.

At a press conference yesterday, Burris said he hadn't mentioned the other conversations in his testimony because he hadn't been asked a direct question about Robert Blagojevich. "At no time did I ever make any inconsistent statement," Burris said.

But according to the Associated Press, the transcript of Burris's testimony shows that he was specifically questioned about Robert Blagojevich, and consulted with his lawyer before responding.

There are also questions about the actions of State Representative Barbara Flynn Currie, the Democrat chairing the impeachment panel. Currie has said she received the affidavit shortly after Burris submitted it February 5th, but, believing it to be routine, she didn't read it or show it to others on the committee.

Illinois Republicans are now calling for a perjury investigation into Burris. As for Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate, who could ultimately hold the key to Burris' fate, they seem to be taking a wait-and-see approach. A spokesman for Senate Democratic chief Harry Reid told the AP, "Senator Reid is reviewing the affidavit and will await any action by Illinois legislative leaders after they review the matter."

But in the short term, it's not clear what can be done. According to one expert who spoke to the AP, the state legislature could pass a bill calling for a special election, arguing that Burris' appointment was only temporary. But whether such a bill would gain sufficient support to pass isn't known.

Blago's fall was pretty quick. But cleaning up the mess he left may take a lot longer.

Barack Obama

Obama Advisory Board Member Is Senior Exec With Firm Under Federal Investigation For Tax Scam

Zachary Roth | February 10, 2009, 7:30PM

Last week, President Obama announced the members of his new Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

And one of the names piqued our interest:

Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas

That's because UBS isn't exactly the kind of company you'd expect Obama might want to associate with just at the moment. It's the subject of a widening federal investigation, being conducted by both DOJ and the IRS, into its offshore private banking services, focused on allegations that it helped an estimated 19,000 wealthy clients evade billions in taxes.

Last fall, Raoul Weil, who ran the firm's global wealth management and business banking division, was indicted in connection with the alleged scheme.

A few months earlier, a former UBS exec, Bradley Birkenfeld, pleaded guilty to helping a client evade millions of dollars in federal income taxes while with the firm.

Of course, there's no indication that Wolf had any connection to the alleged scheme. But it's worth noting that he and Weil did serve together on UBS's Group Executive Board. So it's not like they don't know each other, it appears. (Weil stepped down from the board temporarily after his indictment.)

You'd think President Obama could have rounded out his advisory board with someone from a firm that's not under federal investigation for helping rich people cheat on their taxes -- especially given the current financial climate. Guess not.

Bailout

Obama: Nationalization "Wouldn't Make Sense"

Zachary Roth | February 10, 2009, 6:57PM

In the wake of Tim Geithner's speech this morning, laying out the Treasury's plan, such as it is, for Bailout 3.0, most smart observers have concluded that the Obama administration has at least left the door open for a possible nationalization of failed banks at some point, if it decides circumstances warrant that step.

But in an interview with ABC News' Nighline, set to air tonight, the president seemed to all but rule out that idea. He told ABC:

[Sweden"] took over the banks, nationalized them, got rid of the bad assets, resold the banks and a couple years later, they were going again. So you'd think looking at it, Sweden looks like a good model. Here's the problem -- Sweden had like five banks," he said, laughing. "We've got thousands of banks. You know, the scale of the U.S. economy and the capital markets are so vast and the, the problems in terms of managing and overseeing anything of that scale, I think, would -- our assessment was that it wouldn't make sense. And we also have different traditions in this country.

True, Obama, like Geithner, has always seemed skeptical of nationalization. But his answer to ABC would appear to go further than he yet has in declaring that he'll avoid adopting any version of that approach.

Of course, things might look different once we get done with these "stress tests," and find out how many major banks are truly insolvent. But as of now, the president seems dead set against even short term nationalization.

Barack Obama

Ex-IMFer On Geithner's Speech: "This Is Not A Plan"

Zachary Roth | February 10, 2009, 12:30PM

Timothy Geithner's speech laying out the Treasury's plan for bailout 3.0 struck us as devoid of key details that might have settled some of the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the Obama administration's approach.

That's how it struck Simon Johnson, the former chief economist for the IMF, too.

Johnson told TPMmuckraker that the Treasury Secretary's speech laid out some important principles, especially in regard to the need for transparency and accountability. And he said that Geithner's willingness, in contrast to his predecessor, Henry Paulson, to criticize bankers and policy-makers -- implicitly himself -- was also welcome.

But then, said Johnson, the speech went into "Paulson-land," as Geithner said he would take input from the public on the public-private investment fund the Treasury is considering creating.

That lack of specificity, said Johnson, isn't helping restore confidence, pointing to a sharp drop in the market today, especially in the financial sector. "The market is responding to vagueness," said Johnson. "This is not a plan. In the annals of plan-announcing, this is very vague."

The "stress test" that Geithner discussed today, said Johnson, is a promising idea, but again wasn't fully enough fleshed out to know whether it'll be effective. The proposal, used effectively by Sweden in the early 90s, would require banks to lay their cards on the table, allowing the government to make a rough -- and conservative -- valuation of their assets. That would then allow the government to take over those banks that are truly insolvent, rather than continue to try to prop up failing institutions and suffer a "death by a thousand paper cuts."

Johnson had harsh words for the administration's plan, announced late last week, to modestly limit executive compensation. He called it "a joke," and said Geithner had lost credibility because of it. "No one in the markets is buying those [limits] as meaningful."

Geithner will testify before Senate committees this afternoon and tomorrow morning. So we'll see how many more details we get then. But it looks like this is all still a work in progress.

Barack Obama

Thanks To Obama's Order, Military Drops Charges In Gitmo Trial

Zachary Roth | February 6, 2009, 1:00PM

In one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama issued an executive order instructing prosecutors in military commissions to seek delays in the proceedings, in order to allow his administration to review the comissions process as a whole.

All but one judge complied with the prosecutors' requests. That one, Army Colonel Jame Pohl, declined to do so.

But now, the Associated Press reports, Susan Crawford, the top legal authority for Guantanamo's proceedings, has decided to drop the charges in the case over which Pohl is presiding, thereby bringing the case into compliance with Obama's order.

The case being prosecuted is that of Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent accused of planning the October 2000 Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole warship, which killed 17 service members.

The Pentagon says that Nashiri will remain in prison, and new charges can be filed. But
prosecutors will have to start from square one.

A group representing family members of victims of terrorist attacks has been vocally opposed to Obama's order, and isn't happy about Crawford's move.

According to the AP:

Retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, the commanding officer of the Cole when it was bombed in Yemen in October 2000, said he will be among family members of Cole and 9/11 victims who are meeting with Obama at the White House on Friday afternoon.

Groups representing victims' families were angered by Obama's order, charging they had waited too long already to see the alleged attackers brought to court.

"I was certainly disappointed with the decision to delay the military commissions process," Lippold, now a defense adviser to Military Families United, said in an interview Thursday night. "We have already waited eight years. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must allow the military commission process to go forward."

Barack Obama

White House Announces Exec Pay Limits

Zachary Roth | February 4, 2009, 11:14AM

As expected, the White House has just announced new restrictions on executive pay to be issued by the Treasury Department, in response to public outrage over cases of CEOs of bailed out firms raking in millions.

The limits set a limit of $500,000 on executive pay, for those firms receiving "exceptional financial recovery assistance" -- that is, firms that negotiated "bank-specific" deal with Treasury, including Bank of America, AIG, and Citi. Any pay beyond that must be made in restricted stock that can only be paid once the government has been paid back.

The restrictions also would give shareholders more say on executives' pay, and would make it easier for the government to "claw back" the pay of executives who had engaged in deceptive practices, among other provisions.

Last week, President Obama called the billions paid out in Wall Street bonuses last year "outrageous."

The White House's press release, with a detailed description of the new rules, follows after the jump ...

Read more »

Bill Richardson

Must See TV!

Zachary Roth | February 3, 2009, 5:59PM

Check out the latest episode of TPMtv, on the investigation into possible pay to play in New Mexico, which last month forced Bill Richardson to withdraw his bid to be Commerce Secretary, and has now seemingly ensnared the Democratic Governors Association.

Tom Daschle

Taking Stock Of The Daschle Charges

Zachary Roth | February 2, 2009, 12:58PM

Tom Daschle's nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services has hit a serious snag, in the wake of a string of revelations mostly related to his payment of taxes on income he received as part of his consulting activities since he left the Senate in 2004.

Looking at a range of news reports, there are several different charges out there, each of varying degrees of seriousness. So -- leaving aside the real-world question of which of these charges might be the most politically damaging to Daschle's nomination -- it's worth taking stock of what exactly the former Senate leader stand accused of. And of how, at least initially, might we rate the seriousness of each individual misdeed.

Let's run down the list:

1. The most serious charge -- which comes from a report conducted for the Senate Finance committee, which is handling Daschle's nomination -- is that from 2005 to 2007, he failed to report on his taxes income from the use of a limousine and driver totaling over $255,000, and provided by InterMedia Advisors LLP, a private-equity firm. On January 2, Daschle, having concluded that he owed the money, filed amended returns and paid more than $140,000 in back taxes and interest.

InterMedia, whose advisory board Daschle chairs, was founded in 2005 by Leo Hindery, a politically connected media and telecommunications executive (with an apparent record of embellishing his personal story). Hindery gave at least $42,000 to Mr. Daschle from 1997 to 2004.

Daschle told the committee that he realized last June that the limo service might count as taxable income, and asked his accountant to look into it. A Daschle spokeswoman said the accountant didn't come back to Daschle until late December or early January with a finding that the taxes were owed. Only then did Daschle inform the Obama transition team. "He thought his accountant was taking care of it," the spokeswoman told a reporter.

2. The Finance committee is also probing a second potential tax impropriety stemming from Daschle's relationship with InterMedia. The committee says he failed to report on his 2007 tax return consulting income from the company of $83,333.

But this one appears to be an oversight, if a careless one. According to the committee report, Daschle received that sum per month (or a $1 million a year) from InterMedia under the consulting arrangement. InterMedia left off one monthly payment -- the one for May 2007 -- from the annual statement of income it sent Daschle. The error occurred because the InterMedia staffer normally responsible for reporting such payments was on maternity leave, according to the committee. All the other months were accounted for.

3. The issue that almost certainly has the greatest relevance for Daschle's desired new job as HHS Secretary is his work on behalf of healthcare-industry interests.

In his financial disclosure statement, Daschle reported getting paid more than $390,000 for giving speeches to groups including America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a trade organization representing health insurers. He also got nearly $100,000 from health-related companies affected by federal regulation, including more than $5000 (again, the exact figure wasn't reported) for giving "policy advice" to the insurer UnitedHealth.

4. The committee is also probing Daschle's ties to Educap -- a student loan company that paid Daschle over $5,000 for "policy advice," according to his financial disclosure report. (The exact amount wasn't disclosed).

The inquiry is focused on whether "travel and entertainment services" given to Daschle by Educap and several related entities should have been reported as income. At issue, it appears, are two trips Daschle took on EduCap's corporate jet, one to the Bahamas, the other to the Middle East, to speak with members of the board of directors of a related organization. On the latter trip, Daschle and his traveling companions met with King Abdullah of Jordan, and Israeli minister Ehud Barack, according to the Daschle spokeswoman.

In addition, Daschle has worked during the last few years for Alston & Bird, the high-powered DC law and lobbying firm, which was registered as a lobbyist for EduCap. Some on the committee have suggested that Daschle should himself have registered as a lobbyist for Educap.

So what should we make of all this?

Individually, each charge -- with the exception, perhaps of the until-recently-unpaid taxes on the InterMedia car and driver -- might be seen as not much more than business as usual for a former Congressional leader who has slipped through Washington's revolving door to offer his contacts and expertise to private interests. But cumulatively, they paint a picture of a Washington insider who, at best, has grown negligent about tracking the various forms of compensation he's receiving.

Perhaps more important, Daschle's coziness with corporate interests, many of whom will have key business before Congress and the Obama administration, could complicate the larger task of reducing the influence of the private sector in Washington.

For instance, there's nothing explicitly nefarious about Daschle's work on behalf of health insurers. But interests like AHIP and UnitedHealth have, by and large, stood in the way of efforts to remove our healthcare system from the grip of private interests, which many see as a prerequisite for real reform. Of course, that likely won't happen without at least neutralizing the opposition of the private insurers -- so perhaps Daschle's ties to those insurers make him ideally suited for the role. But at the very least, it would be nice to know what kind of "policy advice" he gave his corporate clients.

Late Update: One additional angle we might have noted. The Finance committee report also found that, from 2005 to 2007, Daschle overstated the deductions to which he was entitled for charitable contributions. When he filed amended returns, he reduced the deductions by almost $15,000.

Late Late Update: Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic adds his well-informed and somewhat more favorable take on Daschle's ability to stand up to private healthcare interests:

On reform, Daschle favors the mainstream Democratic position, which relies primarily on private insurance to deliver coverage--although it also calls for creating a new public plan, into which anybody could enroll. That would put him a bit to my right, insofar as my touting of single-payer as a technically superior--if politically inferior--reform puts me to the mainstream's left. But Daschle's philosophy on health care seems, if anything, to be slightly to the left of where I'd expect a politician of his background (ideological, geographical) to be. And it's exactly where President Obama is, for better or for worse.

What's more, Daschle is very bullish on scrutinizing new treatments for their cost-effectiveness, an idea that the drug and device industries oppose strongly. He's also proposed heavy regulation of the insurance industry and been explicit about the public plan, two positions that don't go over particularly well with most insurers (or many other corporate interest groups, for that matter). Finally, having both heard and read Daschle on many occasions, I believe he is genuinely offended by the way our health care system ruins the lives of countless Americans--and genuinely committed to solving that problem, regardless of which special interests that solution may offend.

Bailout

Obama Planning Bailout Board

Zachary Roth | February 2, 2009, 11:41AM

In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer that aired this morning, President Obama offered a concrete proposal intended to help his administration ensure that bailout money is spent more wisely than it has been until now.

Obama referred to "an independent board ... that actually looks at these programs, and the money, before it goes out the door."

Watch the clip:

Of course, how effective such a board will be is still entirely to be determined. But at least nominally this adds to the evidence that the new Congress and administration appear to understand the need to exert much tighter control over the bailout money than we saw initially.