Allen Stanford

Through Obscure Non-Profit, Stanford Wooed Lawmakers

Zachary Roth | February 20, 2009, 6:58PM

By now, we've all seen those pictures of Allen Stanford hobnobbing with lawmakers in Antigua. But, with the exception of one trip by Sen. John Cornyn, it wasn't Stanford himself who picked up the tab for these jaunts -- it was an obscure outfit called the Inter-American Economic Council.

And taking a closer look at the IAEC, and its ties to Stanford, sheds some light on how the Texas billionaire gained access to all those members of Congress -- and what he hoped to gain by doing so.

The IAEC's website says that the Washington-based group was founded in 1999 and that it aims to "provide senior Government Officials, leading Business Executives, and Academic Professionals the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about current and future economic strategies in the Hemisphere." And in 2003, the Associated Press reported (via Nexis) that, according to IAEC president Barry Featherman, the organization "relies mostly on contributions from U.S. corporations."

But the group appears to have remarkably close ties to Stanford himself. In this 2006 report, Bloomberg described Stanford as a "principal backer" of the organization. And Stanford Financial told Bloomberg that it had "donated the use of its aircraft" to the IAEC for one 2006 trip to Jamaica that four Democratic lawmakers went on.

That same year, the IAEC gave Stanford its "Excellence in Leadership" award. A press release put out by the group (since removed from its website) declared that Stanford "has strongly supported the work that the IAEC is doing in Latin America and the Caribbean."

Stanford also appears to have taken advantage of IAEC-funded events by showing up personally to schmooze lawmakers. We already posted these shots of current or former lawmakers including Katherine Harris, Pete Sessions, Tom Feeney, James Clyburn, and John Sweeney chilling with Stanford and Caribbean dignitaries in Antigua in 2005.

But there's also another set of interesting shots from the previous year, showing Stanford breaking bread with, and addressing, lawmakers -- including former GOP congressman Bob Ney (since jailed for taking bribes from Jack Abramoff) -- at an IAEC-sponsored event in Washington.

(You can see the slideshow of photographs from that event here.)

What was Stanford talking to lawmakers about? An IAEC press release from (via Nexis) from the event gives a hint. It says that in his speech, Stanford "addressed the need to streamline regulatory regimes that make it difficult for investors to take advantage of all of the opportunities that exist in the region."

And that same year, Newsday reported (via Nexis) on an IAEC-sponsored trip to Jamaica that included Democratic congressman Gregory Meeks. The IAEC, said the paper, hoped to "ease Patriot Act restrictions on offshore banking," and that according to Meeks, "the trip was an effort by the Inter-American Economic Council to explain the hardships the act has imposed on Caribbean banks."

In other words, Stanford and the IAEC used these events to try to convince lawmakers not to crack down on tax loopholes that work to benefit offshore banking -- exactly the loopholes that allowed Stanford to operate his alleged multi-billion-dollar scam, free from regulatory scrutiny, for so long .

In fact, the IAEC even seems to have used its clout to create a new congressional caucus -- the Caribbean Caucus -- made up of may of the lawmakers who went on the IAEC-backed trips.

After one such trip in 2003, attended by then-Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), among others, Featherman, the IAEC president, revealed that "Congress is expected to form an informal, bipartisan Caribbean caucus to focus on issues of interest to the region," according to the AP (via Nexis).

The Caribbean Caucus would at various times include, among others, Ney, Meeks, Sweeney, Sessions, Feeney, Charlie Rangel, Mel Watt, Donald Payne, Phil English, Steve Chabot, Donna Christensen, Diane Watson, and Al Wynn, all of whom went to events on IAEC's dime.

Indeed, Stanford seems to have had some sway not only over the IAEC, but over the membership of the Caribbean Caucus itself. That Bloomberg story from 2006 reports that it was Stanford himself who asked Sessions to become a member of the caucus. Sessions seems to have agreed.

The IAEC is staying mum about its relationship to Stanford -- it hasn't returned either of TPMmuckraker's calls over the last few days. And the office of Rep. Payne, who was at one time listed as a co-chair, along with Ney, of the Caribbean Caucus, declined to make anyone available to answer TPMmuckraker's questions.

Allen Stanford

Five-Star Dining, Stanford Style!

Zachary Roth | February 20, 2009, 2:26PM

"It's not often that an owner sets an unlimited budget for creating a tabletop. The Pavilion in Antigua is that rare situation."

That's from a 2004 "Tabletop Performance Special Mention" -- which seems to be some kind award for setting the table. And we're betting you can guess who that free-spending owner is.

The write-up, posted on the site AllBusiness.com, continues:

This restaurant's owner, R. Allen Stanford, created this extremely luxurious, 5-star dining establishment in 2003. It not only serves local residents and guests but also Stanford's high-net-worth clients who fly into Antigua to visit the Stanford International Bank with interest in investing in one of his operations on this island located in the eastern Caribbean.

...

Located at the entrance to V.C. Bird International Airport and overlooking the Stanford Cricket Grounds, The Pavilion was designed in the style of the great Caribbean plantation homes of the 18th century. To showcase their wealth, taste and sophistication, European settlers built these grand residences, called "Great Houses."

It gives a shout-out to Stanford's one-time girlfriend, Andrea Stoelker, who was then managing the restaurant -- and whose brother owns the house in Fredericksburg, Virginia where Stanford has been staying in recent days:

Also instrumental in the design process was The Pavilion's manager, Andrea Stoelker, who charged Nodler and Bailey to "design a tabletop fit for a king." Literally, no expense was spared to accomplish this goal. With the owner's blessing to spend $160 per sterling-silver goblet, $32.50 per crystal stem, $65 per glass bread & butter plate and $10 per pure linen napkin, a spectacular table was set.

Literally!

In case you wanted more details about the table:

The chinaware is primarily Bernaudaud's sculptured undecorated Provence pattern, with the bread & butter plates and the tea cups customized for this installation. The glass service plates are a retail item that the interior designers located and specified and are used in the wine cellar with its reclaimed oak beam-and-timber ceiling, handmade used American bricks and antique French limestone floor, which also houses its 10,000-bottle collection of vintage wine. The glass B&B plates from Annieglass, used as accent pieces, are again retail items made from recycled windowpanes. The crystal stemware is from Riedel's Sommelier collection and is complemented by Christofle Hotel's heavy French silver-plated flatware in its Beau Harnais pattern. Of course the selection process was geared to serve the French creole cuisine of Executive Chef Andrew Knoll.

Of course.

And to top it off:

While the customer felt that Riedel's wine glassware was perfect, they wanted a totally unique water glass. The result was the location and purchase of custom sterling-silver goblets, which, according to Bailey, were handmade for the client in Istanbul, Turkey, each arriving in its own gift sack.

Bank of America

B of A's Lewis Subpoenaed In Merrill Bonus Probe

Zachary Roth | February 20, 2009, 1:24PM

Ken Lewis, Bank of America's embattled CEO, was subpoenaed last week in New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's investigation into the billion dollar bonuses awarded late last year by Merrill Lynch, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The paper adds that former Merrill CEO John Thain, who had previously been subpoenaed, talked to Cuomo's team "all day" Thursday.

Bank of America announced in September that it would acquire Merrill. In December, according to reports, Thain and the Merrill board approved billions in bonuses on an expedited schedule before the firm came under the control of B of A January 1, and despite massive fourth quarter losses.

Accounts of when Lewis and B of A learned of the bonus awards, and of the losses, have been conflicting.

Thain was ousted by Lewis last month as a senior B of A exec.

The Journal adds some more detail on what Cuomo's investigators are after:

In particular, they wanted to know why the September merger agreement contained a nonpublic attachment that outlined the maximum Merrill could pay. A Thain spokesman declined to comment.

The person close to the matter said regulators are turning their attention to Mr. Lewis and are looking at his testimony to Congress earlier this month when he said he had "no authority" over bonuses given they were detailed in the merger agreement and part of the bonuses were paid in Bank of America stock.

Mr. Cuomo's investigators are exploring how Merrill could have set and then informed employees about the bonuses before the quarter closed, according to a person familiar with the matter. They are probing whether trading losses were adequately disclosed to shareholders and boards of each company and what the top executives approving the bonuses knew about the losses.

Global Warming

Post Ombudsman Responds, Unconvincingly, On Will Column

Zachary Roth | February 20, 2009, 1:03PM

After days of radio silence from the Washington Post, the paper's ombudsman, Andy Alexander, has sent out the following statement (via Think Progress) about the George Will column that misrepresented the facts on global warming:

Thank you for your e-mail. The Post's ombudsman typically deals with issues involving the news pages. But I understand the point you and many e-mailers are making, and for that reason I sought clarification from the editorial page editors. Basically, I was told that the Post has a multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible. In this instance, George Will's column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors. The University of Illinois center that Will cited has now said it doesn't agree with his conclusion, but earlier this year it put out a statement (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf) that was among several sources for this column and that notes in part that "Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979."

Best wishes,
Andy Alexander
Washington Post Ombudsman

Hilzoy at the Washington Monthly shows that the statement Alexander cites in fact points to the opposite conclusion from the one Will drew from it.

But engaging at this level of detail is sort of beside the point. As the Post knows, every reputable scientific organization that has studied the issue has confirmed that global warming is occurring. Will's column was intended to mislead readers into believing that not to be true. That's the case whether or not it contained a statement that meets the Post's criteria for factual inaccuracy.

Late Update: Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress says it better than we could:

As for why it's okay for Will to write stuff that isn't true, the Post didn't have much of substance to say. They picked one of debunked subsidiary claims, and said they think Will is right, though they acknowledge that the very organization Will was citing as an authority says Will is wrong. One could say that on this subsidiary point, Will perhaps made an honest mistake that the Arctic Climate Research Center has since corrected. But the Post instead says that Will is right and the Arctic Climate Research Center wrong about what the ACRC's own research says. Meanwhile, they have nothing whatsoever to say about the other problems with the column.

These problems, it should be said, include Will's overarching thesis. Will wrote, and is trying to get readers of The Washington Post to believe, that there was a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. This is false. Post readers are being deceived. And the Post is standing by the deceivers.

This started as a problem for Will, his direct supervisors, and the Post's ombudsman. But now that the Post as a paper is standing behind Will's deceptions, I think it's a problem for all the other people who work at the Post. Some of those people do bad work, which is too bad. And some of those people do good work. And unfortunately, that's worse. It means that when good work appears in the Post it bolsters the reputation of the Post as an institution. And the Post, as an institution, has taken a stand that says it's okay to claim that up is down. It's okay to claim that day is night. It's okay to claim that hot is cold. It's okay to claim that a consensus existed when it didn't. It's okay to claim that George Will is a better source of authority on interpreting the ACRC's scientific research than is the ACRC. Everyone who works at the Post, has, I think, a serious problem.

Late Late Update: Carl Zimmer, who writes frequently about science for the New York Times, goes into more devastating detail to show that the very statement the Post cites rebuts Will's point.

If someone from the Post's crackerjack multi-layer squad of fact-checkers had bothered to pick up the phone, they could have simply asked, "Is it indeed true that global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979?"

And they would have probably gotten an answer like this: "Well, what do you mean by now? Today? And what do you mean by 1979? Exactly thirty years ago today? If that's what you mean, the answer is no."

A good fact-checker would then say, "Well, it seems this claim is based on an article that came out January 1."

To which the scientist would say something along the lines of, "At that point it was near or slightly lower what was observed in late 1979."

At the very least, that discrepancy would have to be corrected. But a good fact-checker would see a deeper problem, saying, "Whoa, that changed a lot in a month and a half."

Which would then lead to a discussion of the fact ice cover is such a noisy process that picking out a single day to compare these numbers does not say a lot about how it is affected by climate change. Climatologists look over longer time scales.

A good fact-checker would also learn that almost all climate models project that increasing greenhouse gases will cause a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades, but the response of the southern hemisphere is less certain. In fact, evaporation caused by the warming might lead to more snowfall onto the sea ice. If the southern ice expands, it cancels out some of the retreat of the northern ice. And lo and behold, the northern hemisphere ice is almost a million square kilometers smaller than it was in late 1979, and the Southern Hemisphere ice is about half a million square kilometers bigger than in late 1979. So not only is Will wrong on the particulars of his statement, but he's wrong on what it means about climate change. A good fact-checker would make sure that this was fixed too.

How can I be so confident that a good fact-checker would learn this? Because it is in that same January statement from the Center that the Post cited as "evidence" that Will was correct.

Allen Stanford

Stanford: How I Avoided Sub-Prime Debacle

Zachary Roth | February 20, 2009, 12:17PM

You've probably seen or read about the interview from last year in which Allen Stanford tells a sycophantic CNBC talking head that "it is fun being a billionaire".

But that same interview also features Stanford boasting -- with the interviewer's eager prompting -- about how, unlike so many other banks, his company was smart enough to "avoid the sub-prime debacle" because it couldn't assess the risk.

Said Stanford:

When you start packaging something with a lot of assets that are all mixed up, and you can't get your arms around what the real asset is, therefore what the risk is, we decided that whatever perceived there might be, we decided not to take that risk, because we didn't know what the risk really was and the perceived profits really became irrelevant.

If only all our bankers had showed the foresight and restraint of Sir Allen!

Check it out...

Allen Stanford

Sessions-Stanford: The Pics Keep Coming

Zachary Roth | February 20, 2009, 11:43AM

Just in case you were still wondering whether Pete Sessions and Allen Stanford know each other, here's another picture of them on that same Antiguan trip, this one posted on the website of the Antiguan government:

Sessions's press secretary told Bloomberg that the congressman did not know Stanford personally.

Allen Stanford

Stanford Pitched Sessions On Protecting Off-Shore Loopholes

Zachary Roth | February 20, 2009, 11:16AM

Earlier this morning, we caught the office of GOP congressman Pete Sessions falsely telling a reporter that Sessions didn't know Allen Stanford personally. (Check out this pic for the evidence he did.)

And here's another interesting example of Sessions and Stanford crossing paths.

A 2004 press release (via Nexis), put out by the Stanford-linked Inter-American Economic Council, touts a meeting the IAEC organized with Caribbean officials and members of Congress, including Sessions.

It declares:

Mr. Allen Stanford spoke about the need for additional assistance to the nations devastated by the hurricanes. He also addressed the need to streamline regulatory regimes that make it difficult for investors to take advantage of all of the opportunities that exist in the region.

In other words, Sessions was at a meeting at at which Stanford pressed lawmakers to leave open the loopholes that benefit off-shore corporations.

A few months later, Sessions and colleagues would fly to Antigua on the IAEC's dime to talk further about the issue.

It's also worth noting that Sessions and Texas GOP senator John Cornyn, unlike a slew of other lawmakers, have declined to return Stanford's money.

Allen Stanford

Pete Sessions' Office Falsely Claims He Didn't Know Stanford

Zachary Roth | February 20, 2009, 10:13AM

Here's a fun one...

With lawmakers scrambling to distance themselves from Allen Stanford, Bloomberg reports:

Representative Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican, got $41,375 [from Stanford's firm]. Spokeswoman Emily Davis said Sessions didn't know Stanford personally.

But check out this picture we posted the other day. It's from that 2005 junket that a group of lawmakers took to Antigua (paid for by the Stanford-linked Inter-American Economic Council) and it shows Sessions, now the NRCC chair, happily chatting with the cricket-loving billionaire.

And in 2006, Sessions' chief of staff told Bloomberg that the two men did know each other -- indeed, that Stanford asked Sessions to become a member of the Caribbean Caucus.

We're guessing that Davis' claim won't remain operative too long. We've contacted her and will let you know what we hear.

Thanks to reader T.D. for the tip.

Late Update: Davis responded via email: "No comment."

Allen Stanford

SEC Vet: Agency Should Have Looked Closer At Stanford

Zachary Roth | February 19, 2009, 4:50PM

Did the SEC fall down on the job by not paying closer attention to Allen Stanford, the billionaire Texas banker accused of orchestrating an $8 billion fraud? One former long-time enforcement director for the agency thinks it may well have.

Robert Fusfeld, who spent 31 years as an SEC enforcement lawyer, and for 15 managed the trial unit in the commission's Denver office before retiring in 2006, told TPMmuckraker that there was plenty of reason for the SEC to aggressively scrutinize Stanford's operation.

"A registered broker dealer and registered investment adviser is selling offshore Caribbean CDs in mammoth volumes, and nobody's looking at the bonafides of the bank," he said.

The New York Times reported today that the Stanford Group paid several fines over the last few years after regulators found that it did not have enough capital to meet the requirements of being a broker-dealer and used misleading sales literature. "There were numerous very significant red flags that included a history of violations," said Fusfeld.

The case, he said, contained the "same kind of red flags as Madoff" -- like consistently high returns -- but with the added red flag of the Antiguan CDs. "It's not Germany, France, or England," he continued, noting the history of "flagrant offshore CD frauds" over the last 10-15 years.

Because Stanford was a registered broker dealer and investment adviser, the SEC had full access to its operation, Fusfeld added. "They can walk right in."

The SEC was publicly flogged earlier this month for its failure to catch Bernard Madoff's alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme. Since then, its appears to have been making a special effort to show it's capable of acting aggressively -- a concern which may have affected the timing of the Stanford complaint filed Tuesday.

It would certainly be ironic if, in this case too, it was found to have fallen down on the job.

Allen Stanford

Stanford Found In U.S.

Zachary Roth | February 19, 2009, 4:35PM

Reuters is reporting that Allen Stanford has been found in Virginia and served by the FBI with court papers.

MSNBC just confirmed that report moments ago.

Stanford has been accused by the SEC of orchestrating an $8 billion fraud, but still has not been criminally charged.

Late Update: ABC News has more Stanford details:

- According to one of his lobbyists, Ben Barnes, Stanford has turned in his passport and said he won't flee. He's described as "very depressed" and sought to end the manhunt by approaching DOJ officials himself.

- In addition:

In the meantime, the SEC has begun to seize an array of private property owned by Stanford and his firm.

Stanford's fleet of six private jets were recalled to the corporate hangar at Sugarland Airport outside Houston, including the Bombardier 500 luxury jet that was used exclusively by Stanford.

According to flight records, the Stanford jet flew into Washington, D.C. earlier this week and returned to Houston yesterday afternoon. Flight crews said Stanford was not seen on the plane when it unloaded.

- And Stanford has hired top DC criminal defense lawyer Brendan Sullivan, of Williams and Connolly. Sullivan represented Oliver North and Ted Stevens.

Separately, AP adds that Stanford was served with court papers in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

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...

Allen Stanford

The Daily Stanford

Zachary Roth | February 19, 2009, 11:02AM

The developments in the Allen Stanford case are coming thick and fast. Let's get up to speed:

- ABC News reported that the FBI has been investigating whether Stanford laundered money for a Mexican drug cartel.

- Bloomberg reported that the FBI is separately investigating Stanford's fraud and seems likely to bring criminal charges. (To date, Stanford has not been criminally charged.)

- The New York Times reported that both the SEC and FINRA had investigated Stanford in recent years, and merely issued a few fines, despite the existence of "major red flags" in the words of one expert. (More on that to come.)

- Some members of Congress said they'd return donations from Stanford. But others, like GOPers John Cornyn and Pete Sessions said they'd keep the loot!

- The government of Venezuela took over a local Stanford bank.

- Latin Americans and Caribbeans scrambled to get their money out of Stanford banks.

- Former Swiss President Adolf Ogi said he would resign from the board of Stanford Financial Group.

- And maybe most worryingly, the SEC has admitted it doesn't know where Stanford is.

James Tobin

Tobin Phone-Jamming Case Dismissed

Zachary Roth | February 19, 2009, 9:25AM

It'd be hard to blame GOP bigwig Ken Mehlman for breathing a sigh of relief this morning.

The Bangor Daily News reports that a judge yesterday dismissed the case against James Tobin, the former GOP official who was accused of participating in a plot to jam the phones of the New Hampshire Democratic party on Election Day 2002.

Tobin had in 2005 been convicted of participating in the plot, but that conviction was overturned two years later. This time, he was charged with lying to the FBI about his role in the scheme.

But US District Court Judge George Singal ruled that bringing charges against Tobin in Maine, where Tobin lives, after he had been cleared in New Hampshire of the original charges, qualified as a "vindictive prosecution".

Two other people -- the head of the New Hampshire GOP and a Republican consultant -- have served jail time for their roles in the phone jamming, which may have played a role in John Sununu's defeat of Jeanne Shaheen in the U.S. Senate race that year.

Phone records released in those cases show that Tobin, at the time a New-England-based staffer for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, made two dozen calls to the office of Mehlman, then-White House political director, within a three-day period around Election Day 2002. Mehlman has said none of the calls involved the phone-jamming incident.

But the Republican National Committee has admitted to paying Tobin's legal bills during that case, totaling nearly $3 million.

Wall Street

UBS To Pay Fine, Give Up List Of Clients On Whose Behalf It Schemed

Zachary Roth | February 18, 2009, 6:27PM

The New York Times reports:

Tearing a hole in the veil of secrecy surrounding Swiss banking, UBS agreed on Wednesday to pay $780 million to settle federal claims that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes and to disclose the names of up to 19,000 clients.

...

Under the agreement, UBS admitted to conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.

It's that agreement to give up the names of its wealthy clients that's the big deal here. The bank had been refusing to disclose the names, but appeared to cave with the threat of indictments hanging over its head.

Prosecutors allege that UBS helped clients evade $300 million a year in taxes.

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

Allen Stanford

Lawmakers' Caribbean Junket With Allen Stanford: The Pictures That Reveal All

Zachary Roth | February 18, 2009, 2:45PM

We've put together a slideshow of that 2005 junket that a group of lawmakers -- including Katherine Harris, Tom Feeney, John Sweeney, James Clyburn, and Pete Sessions, went on to Antigua, paid for by an organization with close ties to Stanford.

Our favorite is the one of Harris and Sir Allen gazing into each other's eyes.

Check it out...

Allen Stanford

Six Degrees Of Allen Stanford

Zachary Roth | February 18, 2009, 2:24PM

Here at TPMmuckraker, the more we think about the Allen Stanford saga, the more it seems like a kind of harmonic convergence of recent high-profile muck.

The emerging story's range of ties -- some incidental, some more substantive -- to some other high-profile scandals of the past few years, from Bermard Madoff to Jack Abramoff to Rod Blagojevich -- is pretty striking.

First, Madoff.

It's not just that questions about the pace of the SEC's Stanford investigation -- including whether the agency's decision to bring charges yesterday was prompted in part by recent news reports -- have to be considered in light of the SEC's well-documented missteps on the Madoff case.

It's also that, according to the SEC complaint, Stanford's investors were exposed to losses via Madoff -- but falsely assured them they weren't.

From the complaint:

In a December 2008 Monthly Report, the bank told investors that their money was safe because SID "had no direct or indirect exposure to any of [Bernard] Madoffs investments."

But, contrary to this statement, at least $400,000 in Tier 2 was invested in Meridian, a New York-based hedge fund that used Tremont Partners as its asset manager. Tremont invested approximately 6-8% of the SIB assets they indirectly managed with Madoffs investment firm.

Pendergest, Davis and Stanford knew about this exposure to loss relating to the Meridian investment. On December 15, 2008, an Analyst informed Pendergast, Davis and Stanford in a weekly report that his "rough estimate is a loss of $400k ... based on the indirect exposure" to Madoff'.

As for Abramoff, we reported yesterday that a bevvy lawmakers with ties to the crooked lobbyist or a history of other ethical problems - including then-GOP members of Congress Bob Ney, Katherine Harris, Tom Feeney, and John Sweeney, as well as current Rep. Charlie Rangel -- went on a 2005 junket to Antigua that was funded by an organization with close links to Stanford.

Indeed, until yesterday, that organization, the Inter-American Economic Council, had photographs from the trip -- showing Harris, Feeney, and pals hobnobbing in splendor with Antiguan dignitaries -- posted on its website. It's since removed them, but not before we saved them. You can see the slideshow here.

And there's also another congressional angle which, though not on a par with the Abramoff sleaze, nonetheless appears to reflect the cynical money-for-access culture that has characterized Washington politics in recent years:

In 2002, as we reported yesterday, after lobbying from Stanford's firm, the Democratic-controlled Senate killed a bill designed to bolster efforts to catch financial fraud. During that cycle, Stanford's company had given an eye-popping $800,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. And according to campaign finance records examined by TPMmuckraker, it had also given generously to key Democrats on the Senate Banking committee: $8000 to Chuck Schumer, $6000 to Chris Dodd, and $1000 to then-chair Paul Sarbanes.

So there's that.

What about Blago?

Well, it turns out that, according to lobby disclosure reports examined by TPMmuckraker, one of Stanford's paid lobbyists in 2002 -- the year that the firm was lobbying on the anti-financial-fraud bill -- was John Wyma. One form lists Wyma and his team's work as "Helping them address legislature (sic) which involves financial services companies."

In case you'd forgotten, Wyma used to be one of Blagojevich's closest aides, before cooperating with Pat Fitzgerald's investigation by secretly recording conversations with the then governor.

The two were apparently think as thieves at one time. The Chicago Tribune reported at the time of Blago's arrest:

The governor routinely reported exchanging personal gifts and often appeared at Wyma-sponsored fundraisers where Wyma's clients hobnobbed with the governor before turning over checks for his campaign fund.

Now all we need is a link to the U.S. Attorney firings, and we'll be all set.

Allen Stanford

Report: Stanford Tried To Get On Flight To Antigua

Zachary Roth | February 18, 2009, 11:26AM

CNBC reports that, according to a source, Allen Stanford, who was charged yesterday with perpetrating an $8 billion fraud, tried unsuccessfully to get a one-way flight out of the U.S. to Antigua.

Says the business channel:

R. Allen Stanford tried to arrange the direct flight to Antigua, here his offshore banking operations are based. He contacted a private jet owner and attempted to pay for the flight with a credit card, but was refused because the company would only accept a wire transfer, a source in the private jet industry said.

The suggestion that Stanford may still be on U.S. soil could be encouraging for those hoping to see the flamboyant cricket-loving billionaire brought to justice. There has been speculation in the last 24 hours that he may already have scarpered to Latin America or elsewhere.

Roland Burris

Burris' Day: Two Perjury Probes, and Calls For Resignation

Zachary Roth | February 18, 2009, 8:53AM

Yesterday was not a good day for Roland Burris.

First, he admitted that, contradicting the impression he had left over the weekend, he had tried to raise money for Rod Blagojevich after a conversation with the then-governor's brother. (That acknowledgement came on the heels of an affidavit Burris filed earlier this month which itself contradicted his sworn testimony to the legislature about conversations with Blagojevich's circle.)

Then, we learned that two investigations have been launched into the new senator's shifting explanations. One is described by the Chicago Tribune as "a perjury review," being conducted by John Schmidt, the local prosecutor in Springfield, and a Republican. Schmidt said he was acting on a request from Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

And the Senate ethics committee opened its own probe into the perjury question yesterday, The Hill confirmed.

Then late last night, the Tribune and the Washington Post went live with editorials calling on Burris to resign.

Like we said, not a good day.

Allen Stanford

After Lobbying From Stanford, Senate Killed Bill To Combat Financial Fraud

Zachary Roth | February 17, 2009, 5:08PM

A great catch on Stanford by Lindsay Renick Mayer of the Center for Responsive Politics.

To summarize: The cycle during which the Stanford Financial Group gave the most in political contributions was 2001-2002. That may have been because, at that time, Congress was debating the Financial Services Antifraud Network Act, which, according to CRP, would have "created a computer network linking the databases of state and federal banking, securities and insurance regulators to curb financial fraud."

That bill ended up passing the House, but not the Senate. And according to lobbying reports, says Renick Mayer, Stanford Financial Group lobbied on the bill. (It's not hard to guess their position.)

During that same cycle, Renick Mayer continues, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee took in more than $800,000 from the firm. At the time, the DSCC was chaired by Florida Democratic senator Bill Nelson. And Nelson is the current member of Congress who has received more campaign cash from Stanford and its employees than any other, raking in $45,900.

Leaving Nelson aside, could that 2002 bill to combat financial fraud, which died in the Senate after lobbying from Stanford, have helped authorities uncover the firm's alleged fraud much sooner? Seems worth asking...

Allen Stanford

Stanford-Tied Group Funded Numerous Antiguan Trips For Lawmakers

Zachary Roth | February 17, 2009, 4:12PM

The number of lawmakers who may have taken trips to Antigua and Barbuda backed by alleged billion-dollar fraudster Allen Stanford just keeps getting bigger.

According to congressional travel disclosure reports posted on the Legistorm website, between 2003 and 2005 several members of Congress or their aides took trips to the island nation that were financed by the Inter-American Economic Council.

Among the lawmakers current or former: Bob Ney (R-OH), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Max Sandlin (D-TX), Donald Payne (D-NJ), John Sweeney (R-NY), Phil Crane (R-IL), and Gregory Meeks (D-NY).

Aides to Ney, Sessions, Sandlin, and Tom DeLay (R-TX) also soaked up the Antiguan sun.

Stanford is closely tied to the IAEC. In 2006, he received the organization's "Excellence in Leadership" Award. A press release put out by the group declared that Stanford "has strongly supported the work that the IAEC is doing in Latin America and the Caribbean."

There's no firm evidence that Stanford paid for all these lawmakers' trips. But he certainly seems to have been a major financial backer and ally of the outfit that did.

We've called the IAEC to ask about its ties to Stanford and will let you know what we find out.

Bob Ney

"Caribbean Caucus" Lawmakers Took Trips On Stanford Jets

Zachary Roth | February 17, 2009, 3:03PM

Last May, buried in a long Bloomberg report about Stanford's tussles with Stanford University over his claim to be descended from the school's founder, was this nugget:

Members of the House Caribbean Caucus take annual trips to the region on Stanford's jets. Lawmakers are required to reimburse companies at a first-class commercial rate, which is often a fraction of the actual cost.

The House Caribbean Caucus? We don't mind telling you, we weren't even aware of its existence.

But according to this announcement from the Inter-American Economic Council, which appears to be from circa 2005, it has some pretty interesting co-chairs:

Co-Chairs of the Congressional Caribbean Caucus Congressman Donald Payne (D-NJ), Congressman Robert Ney (R-OH), Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX), Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL), Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Congressman John Sweeney (R-NY), Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC), Congressman Phil English (R-PA), Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) Congresswomen Donna Christensen (D-VI), and Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-CA).

That's something of a rogue's gallery...

Ney, of course, did jail time after pleading guilty to lying about his involvement in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Feeney also was implicated in the Abramoff scandal, and was named one of the "20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" in a report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Sweeney also made CREW's list, and went on an Abramoff-funded junket to the Northern Mariana islands with Tony Rudy.

Rangel is currently being investigated by the House ethics committee in connection with, among other issues, unpaid taxes on income from a Caribbean vacation home.

This story just gets more and more interesting...

Allen Stanford

Cornyn Took Caribbean Junket On Stanford's Dime

Zachary Roth | February 17, 2009, 2:20PM

So we already knew that Allen Stanford -- the Texas banker charged by the SEC today with running an $8 billion "fraud of shocking magnitude" -- had some pretty impressive political contacts with both parties.

But it looks like his relationship with one of his home-state senators, Republican John Cornyn, may have been especially cozy.

According to Cornyn's Senate disclosure reports -- posted on the site Legistorm.com, which tracks privately financed trips by members of Congress -- the Stanford Financial Group paid for the Texas senator and an unnamed companion to take a November 2004 trip down to Antigua and Barbuda, the tiny Carribean nation where the company has its headquarters.

The three day trip is described by Legistorm as a "financial services industry fact-finding mission hosted by constituent company with substantial operations on site."

The site adds:

Sen. Cornyn discloses expenses for himself and a companion, but does not disclose the identity of the companion.

The total cost of the trip: $7,441.00

It would be hard to blame Cornyn if financial regulation wasn't the only thing on his mind while he was in Antigua. The trip occurred right after the November 2004 election, during which Cornyn was working hard for George W. Bush. And just last Sunday, the New York Times travel section described Antigua as a group of "famously paradisiacal islands that actually lives up to the hype."

The paper continued:

An array of über-luxurious resorts have cashed in on the lush surroundings, and provide their well-heeled guests with so many hedonistic diversions that many never emerge to see what lies beyond the resort gates.

Sounds like just the spot for some fact-finding!

We've told you all about Stanford's generous record of contributions to lawmakers from both sides of the aisle -- and especially to those with authority over the banking sector. The New York Times has gone further, reporting that Stanford's contributions appear to focus "particularly on legislators considering bills that would change offshore banking rules."

Cornyn this year became a member of the Senate Finance committee, though in 2004 he was not a member.

We've put in a call to Cornyn's office to ask what he learned on the "fact-finding mission" Stanford paid for -- and who his mystery companion was -- and will update with anything we learn.

Thanks to reader B.K. for the tip.

Late Update: It looks like Cornyn's spokesman was asked by the Center for Public Integrity back in 2006 about the identity of Cornyn's companion, and responded that it was Cornyn's wife.

Interestingly, CPI said the trip was "to tour the offices of trip sponsor Stanford Financial Group."

Thanks to commenter Snig for pointing that out.

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.

Allen Stanford

Judge Freezes Stanford Assets

Zachary Roth | February 17, 2009, 1:08PM

The Houston Chronicle reports:

U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor issued an order freezing the defendants' assets and appointed a receiver to marshal them.

And Reuters, in full blog mode, adds:

STANFORD FINANCIAL GROUP SIGN IN HOUSTON SAYS NOW "UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF A RECEIVER" - REUTERS EYEWITNESS.

Allen Stanford

Stanford Charged With "Fraud Of Shocking Magnitude"

Zachary Roth | February 17, 2009, 12:32PM

Allen Stanford, the billionaire Texas banker, has been charged with orchestrating a fraudulent, multibillion dollar investment scheme, the SEC announced in a press release this morning.

An SEC spokeswoman called it "a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world."

There's also more detail on Stanford's alleged scheme, which seems to have involved selling certificates of deposit worth $8 billion based on fraudulent returns.

From the release:

The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Dallas, alleges that acting through a network of SGC financial advisers, SIB has sold approximately $8 billion of so-called "certificates of deposit" to investors by promising improbable and unsubstantiated high interest rates. These rates were supposedly earned through SIB's unique investment strategy, which purportedly allowed the bank to achieve double-digit returns on its investments for the past 15 years.

According to the SEC's complaint, the defendants have misrepresented to CD purchasers that their deposits are safe, falsely claiming that the bank re-invests client funds primarily in "liquid" financial instruments (the portfolio); monitors the portfolio through a team of 20-plus analysts; and is subject to yearly audits by Antiguan regulators.

There's also a possible connection to the Bernard Madoff case. The release continues:

Recently, as the market absorbed the news of Bernard Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme, SIB attempted to calm its own investors by falsely claiming the bank has no "direct or indirect" exposure to the Madoff scheme.

The release does not give details as to the nature of that exposure.

But there are other details reminiscent of Madoff:

Others charged along with Stanford are James Davis, the chief financial officer for Stanford International Bank (the wing of Stanford's financial empire implicated in the alleged fraud) and Laura Pendergest-Holt, chief investment officer of Stanford Financial Group.

According to the release, Pendergest-Holt had no financial services or securities industry experience before joining Stanford. And Davis was Stanford's college roommate.

In the same vein, the agency notes that the investment committee for Stanford International Bank "is comprised of Stanford; Stanford's father who resides in Mexia, Texas; another Mexia resident with business experience in cattle ranching and car sales." That committee is charged with managing the bank's multi-billion dollar portfolio of assets.

And according to the New York Times' examination of the complaint itself, the SEC acted after it subpoenaed Stanford and Davis for testimony and documents that would help account for $8 billion in assets, and received no response.

As for Pendergast-Holt, the chief financial officer, she claimed that only Stanford and Davs had access to the bank's assets.

Separately, Reuters just reported that about 15 people, some wearing jackets identifying them as U.S. marshals, were seen entering Stanford's Houston office this morning.

Allen Stanford

Report: US Agents Enter Stanford's Houston Office

Zachary Roth | February 17, 2009, 12:01PM

Reuters reports:

Federal agents with the U.S. Marshals Service entered the Houston office of Stanford Financial Group Tuesday, according to a Reuters eyewitness on the scene.

George Will

Hiatt, Will, On Global Warming Misinformation: Talk To The Hand

Zachary Roth | February 17, 2009, 11:30AM

Mum's the word for George Will and the Washington Post when it comes to explaining how misinformation on global warming got into Will's most recent column.

Yesterday morning we called Will to ask him about the misrepresentations in his Sunday column. We also called Fred Hiatt, the editor of the paper's editorial page, to ask about the editing process that the Post's editorial page employs. Neither chose to answer our questions.

As we reported yesterday, Will twice misrepresented the facts in his Sunday column, to make it appear that there's no expert consensus that warming is happening.

In one case, Will wrote that the respected Arctic Climate Research Center had found that global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979. But within hours, the ACRC had put up a statement saying those levels have in fact significantly decreased, and adding: "We do not know where George Will is getting his information."

In the second, Will, apparently seizing on a year-old (and since corrected) BBC story, wrote: "[A]ccording to the World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." That's technically true, since 1998 was a particularly hot year. But the implication was that the organization doesn't believe warming is occurring. Will didn't tell readers that the WMO had followed up by confirming its uncontroversial view that global warming is continuing, and making clear that gauging climate change by looking only at one year is all but useless.

So there's no question that, whatever Will's intention, his column misinformed readers. But here's what happened when we tried to talk about all this yesterday morning with Will and Hiatt:

Will's assistant told us that Will might get back to us later in the day to talk about the column. And Hiatt said he was too busy to talk about it just then, but that he'd try to respond to emailed questions. So we emailed him yesterday's post, with several questions about the editing process, then followed up with another email late yesterday afternoon.

But still nothing from either of them, over twenty-four hours after the first contact was made. Nor has the online version of Will's column been updated, even to reflect the fact that the ACRC has utterly disavowed the claim Will attributes to it.

We're hearing that the Post's editing process for opinion pieces is virtually non-existent. Maybe that makes sense in some cases -- it certainly seems reasonable to give most columnists a freer hand than straight news reporters get. But it's difficult to know for sure when the Post won't talk about it. And that approach sure didn't serve the paper well here.

As for Will, it's not hard to understand why he wouldn't want to discuss a column as misleading as Sunday's.

Alaska

Justice Department Replaces Stevens Prosecution Team

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 5:03PM

Talk about ironic.

Amid concerns over the integrity of their work, the Justice Department has removed the head of the Public Integrity Section and several other prosecutors from the Ted Stevens trial, according to court filings examined by The Politico.

Late last week, the judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan, ruled that four of the prosecutors, including William Welch, the Public Integrity chief, were in contempt of court for failing to turn over documents as he'd ordered them to do.

The documents at issue relate to allegations by an FBI agent in the case that another agent had an improper relationship with a key government witness, and that the prosecution concealed this from the defense.

Along with Welch, the lead prosecutor on the case, Brenda Morris, as well as several other prosecutors, are being ousted. They're being replaced by Paul O'Brien, chief of the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, David Jaffe, the deputy chief of the Domestic Security Section, and William Stuckwisch, senior trial attorney in the Fraud Section.

Stevens the Republican former Alaska senator, was convicted last fall of failing to report gifts on his Senate disclosure form. But defense lawyers have appealed, questioning the legitimacy of those proceedings, citing, among other things, the claim of withheld evidence.

Allen Stanford

Is Allen Stanford The 21st Century's Jay Gatsby?

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 4:25PM

It looks like Allen Stanford, the billionaire Texan banker whose investment firm is being probed by the Feds, has a positively Gatsbyesque yearning to be accepted into high society.

As we knew, Stanford calls himself "Sir" Allen Stanford, on account of a knighthood he was awarded by the former prime minister of Antigua, where his business is based. But it looks like maybe that wasn't quite good enough for Stanford, since until recently he was claiming, falsely, that the knighthood was presented by the British Royal family.

Check out this report (via Nexis), from last November in the Mail on Sunday of London:

Texan-born billionaire Sir Allen Stanford's corporate website claims that, after he became a citizen of the Commonwealth territory of Antigua, it appointed him a 'Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of the Nation'.

'He was presented [with] this honour by His Royal Highness Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex,' states the website.

However, The Mail on Sunday has learned that the Prince had nothing to do with the honour and that it was not approved by the Queen.

...

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said it was a coincidence that the knighthood ceremony, conducted by an Antiguan political appointee, took place during a celebration of the island's independence, at which Prince Edward was a guest.

'It is incorrect to say that the Earl of Wessex knighted this person while in Antigua,' said the spokesman.

Stanford's personal web site now says only that the Earl of Wessex attended the ceremony at which the "royal knighthood" was bestowed. (Though the "royal" part still seem dubious, since Buckingham Palace has disavowed any role in the proceeding.)

The whole tale is reminiscent of Stanford's claim to be descended from the founder of Stanford University. The school has denied the link.

Indeed, even the awarding of Stanford's title by the Antiguan government appears to have been pretty irregular. The paper explains:

His knighthood was bestowed in 2006 under an Antiguan law that allows its politicians to draw up an annual honours list.

But the decision to honour Stanford has caused an outcry on the island, where his ownership of a £1billion financial and property empire has made him a divisive figure. Critics deride the award as a 'mockery' and have gone to court to challenge the legislation.

Antigua's National Honours Act authorises the granting of titles to distinguished citizens, who are screened by a bipartisan committee.

But Stanford was knighted under a 2000 amendment to the act, which permits the island's most powerful politicians to allow their candidates to bypass the vetting procedure.

Phillip Abbott, a businessman who is descended from the island's first settlers, has contested in the Antiguan High Court that the amendment is invalid. 'The spectacle of Allen Stanford being knighted got up my nose,' he said. 'This amendment permits politicians to nominate anyone for a title without going through the vetting required by law.'

As we said, Gatsbyesque.

New details have also emerged about Stanford's business, and what might have tipped off regulators that something fishy was going on.

Reuters reports:

According to US regulatory filings, Stanford owns more than 10 percent stakes in three companies trading below $2 per share on the Bulletin Board or Pink Sheets: eLandia International Inc, a Coral Gables, Florida technology company.

Forefront Holdings Inc, a Brentwood, Tennessee provider of golf supplies; and Health Systems Solutions Inc, a New York technology and services company. "These were not exactly blue chip companies," said Bob Parrish, an accountant in Longboat Key, Florida, whose clients pulled roughly $500,000 out of Stanford last year.

The high rates for certificates of deposit, long considered safe short-term investments, seem to have caught the attention of U.S. regulators who began probing the company in mid-2008.

The wire service adds that the Texas Attorney General's office, and the Florida Office of Financial Regulations are also probing the company.

Torture

Dem Senators To DOJ: How's That Report On Torture Opinions Coming?

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 2:36PM

Looks like it's not just journalists who are interested in the progress of that DOJ report into whether Bush administration lawyers shaded their opinions on the legality of harsh interrogation methods in order to please the White House.

In the wake of Newsweek's story from over the weekend that a draft of the report criticizes several top Bush officials, including John Yoo, Democratic senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of whom sit on the Judiciary committee, have sent a letter to Marshall Jarrett, who heads the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility and is overseeing the report.

In the letter, the senators, who wrote to Jarrett last year requesting the investigation, note that, according to Newsweek, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. They ask for an update on the status of Jarrett's probe by February 23.

They also suggest that they'll take action if the evidence shows that DOJ lawyers shaped their opinions to conform to the White House's views, writing:

Our intelligence professionals should be able to rely in good faith on the Justice Department's legal advice. This good faith is undermined when Justice Department attorneys provide legal advice so misguided that it damages America's image around the world and the Justice Department is forced to repudiate it. If the officials who provide such advice fail to comply with professional standards, they must be held accountable in order to maintain the faith of the intelligence community and the American people in the Justice Department."

As we noted before, it's not clear that the report will ultimately be released to the public. But at least some in Congress appear to be taking it seriously.

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.

Alberto Gonzales

Newsweek: Report Will Blast Bush Lawyers On Torture Opinions

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 12:27PM

Those Bush lawyers who approved torture may not be in the clear just yet.

Newsweek reveals that a report into the integrity of opinions given by Bush DOJ attorneys, approving water-boarding and other harsh interrogation techniques, is sharply critical of several top officials, including John Yoo, the author of the infamous "torture memo".

A draft of the report -- which was authored Marshall Jarrett, the head of the department's Office of Professional Responsbility -- was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. But it looks like Bush's DOJ brass pushed back.

According to Newsweek's sources, former Attorney General Michel Mukasey, and his deputy Mark Filip, "strongly objected to the draft." Apparently, Filip wanted the report to include responses from the three DOJers most heavily criticized -- in addition to Yoo, that was Jay Bybee, another top department lawyer who wrote opinions authorizing harsh tactics, and Steven Bradbury, who ran the department's Office of Legal Counsel.

A spokesman for the Obama DOJ told Newsweek it's reviewing the matter.

It sounds like the report could contain be pretty hard-hitting. Newsweek says it's focusing on "whether the memo's authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted." According to one source, the investigators have obtained, in the magazine's words, "internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted."

But Yoo et al. may not be in much legal jeopardy. Newsweek adds that, at worst, the report "could be forwarded to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action".

It's also not clear we'll ever get to see the report. Jarrett told the Senate Judiciary committee last year that he'd inform them of his findings, but only that he's "consider" releasing a public version.

If this isn't an issue that deserves a full public airing, it's hard to know what would be.

Global Warming

Where There's a (George) Will There's A Way ... To Deny Global Warming

Zachary Roth | February 16, 2009, 11:20AM

Looks like Fred Barnes isn't the only high-profile conservative columnist still arguing that climate change doesn't really exist.

Over the weekend, the Washington Post's George Will, got in on the act. And it took us about ten minutes -- longer, it appears, than the Post's editors spent -- to figure out that Will, like Barnes, was essentially making stuff up.

Both of Will's major "data points" fall apart after a moment's scrutiny.

Here's the first:

According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

But within hours of Will's column appearing, the ACRC had posted the following statement on its website:

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

So, nevermind then.

As for Will's second claim, he writes:

[A]ccording to the World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade.

This one is a little more complicated. But only a little.

Will's claim appears to come from a BBC News article from way back in April 2008, whose first version reported:

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

It's true that temperatures haven't risen since 1998, because that year was a particularly hot one. But as anyone with a high-school level grasp of statistics understands, you need to look at data over a broad period to get a realistic assessment of what's going on. In fact, the WMO itself made that very point in an "information note" that confirmed that the organization believes global warming is continuing, and pointed out that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

The WMO wrote:

The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. [...] "For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming," World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature "anomalies".

Indeed, the BBC soon changed the third paragraph of its report to read:

But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

That changed prompted climate change deniers to see a nefarious conspiracy to hide the truth. But given that additional information from the WMO, it's pretty clear that the revised version better reflects reality.

Will, of course, doesn't appear to have been interested in any of this. He saw (perhaps via Rush Limbaugh?) a report that appeared to confirm what he believes ... and straight into the Washington Post it went. Neither did Will's editors at the Post seem to care enough about not misinforming their readers to take ten minutes to delve into any of this.

An assistant for Will said the columnist might be able to return TPMmuckraker's call about the column this afternoon. Fred Hiatt, the Post's editorial page editor told TPMmuckraker he'd try to respond to questions about the editing process later today. We'll update this post if we hear back.

Thanks to reader C.P. for the catch.