Is it Jim Lindgren day on The Blog? For those of you following the contours of the Blago scandal, check out Lindgren’s various posts at the Volokh conspiracy. He was the first person (or at least the first person I read) to focus on Valerie Jarrett, the importance of the November 8-12 time period, and the November 10th conference call. Lindgren notes the dramatic change in Obama’s position during this brief period on Valerie Jarrett as his potential replacement in the Senate. First came leaks noting that Obama wanted Jarrett to have the position (leaks that presumably came from the transition). They were followed shortly by leaks that Obama wanted Jarrett with him at the White House. (And, as Lindgren notes, it’s interesting — and potentially revealing — that Obama said that he wanted Jarrett at the White House rather than Jarrett simply declaring that she wasn’t interested in the Senate seat. What happened in between? The November 10th conference call in which Blagojevich tells a large group that he wants something in exchange for the Senate seat. Lindgren put together this timeline a couple days ago and, as he notes, it is quickly becoming the conventional view of what likely happened. Obama’s press conference did little to shed new light on all of this. It seems clear that he did not talk to Blagojevich by phone about the seat. If he had, it’s inconceivable that he’d be making the kind of categorical denials he’s made in recent days and made again today. It also seems clear that his staff did have contacts with Blagojevich (or his staff) about the seat. He has twice in recent days refused to rule out such staff contacts and this morning said he had ordered his staff to detail all such contacts so that he can make them public. That’s smart. But one thing in his comments today struck me as problematic. Shortly after he told reporters that he was looking into the nature of any staff contacts with Blagojevich he claimed knowledge of the contents of any such discussions. Obama said he was “absolutely certain” that “our office had no involvement in any deal-making for my Senate seat.” That may be true. And if the narrative that Lindgren has put together is right, then it seems likely that someone on Obama’s staff may have notified Patrick Fitzgerald of the pay-to-play scheme or have been otherwise cooperating with him. (Remember, in the Scooter Libby investigation, Fitzgerald asked Richard Armitage to say nothing public about the fact that he was the leaker in order to allow the investigation to proceed.) Two concluding points. 1) Even with a 76-page complaint, a lengthy press conference by Fitzgerald and lots of reporting on this, we know very little about what actually happened. 2) Contrary to a lot of excitement on the right, it is possible — and maybe likely — that Obama will come out of this unscathed and perhaps even looking good. The opposite could be true, too, of course if Obama is not as transparent as he has pledged to be. As I say, there’s a lot we don’t know.
