SEIU: We Did Nothing Wrong In Blago Tale
The SEIU, which has a role in the bizarre Blagojevich tale, is claiming in a statement that the union did nothing wrong.
"We have no reason to believe that SEIU or any SEIU official was involved in any wrongdoing," SEIU spokesperson Ramona Oliver says in a statement just sent over.
According to the criminal complaint, an unnamed SEIU official was in discussions with Blago over whom to appoint to Obama's vacant Senate seat. The complaint says that Blago and the official discussed various machinations, with the SEIU official telling Blago that he would ascertain whether Obama wanted candidates other than senior advisor Valerie Jarrett considered for the seat. SEIU reportedly was pushing Jarrett.
Blago also allegedly floated to the SEIU official the idea of him heading a lucrative non-profit organization as part of some sort of deal involving the seat. The SEIU official allegedly suggested that he would "put that flag up and see where it goes." It's unclear with whom the SEIU official was going to "put that flag up with," what precisely Blago suggested to the official or whether the SEIU official really was serious about pursuing it.
The SEIU isn't answering those questions for now.
"In keeping with the U.S. Attorney's request, we are not sharing information with the media at this time," the spokesperson continued.
The SEIU hasn't yet confirmed who the official is, and there's no suggestion in the criminal complaint that SEIU did anything wrong.
All those involved will come to light in due time.
December 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible for the Obama camp to make a statement? Or, if the rumors of Rahm's involvement are true, will they be forced to keep quiet?
December 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there's any "legal" reason Rahm would have to be quiet about things...the SpecPros. may have asked him to be quiet...if he's really the whistle blower...
December 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"put that flag up" sounds like SEIU guy was thinking "red flag" at Blago's suggestion.
December 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unions in Chicago involved in illicit dealings with politicians? Well I never!
December 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're going to jump to unreasonable conclusions, you may not like where you land...
December 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This story gets stranger as the day draws on. Seriously. How many other groups/people are going to come forward now to claim they had not connection to this...?
Giving Chicago pols a bad name. Or a justified one, depending on your point of view.
December 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for the record, neither I nor my cats were involved in any wrongdoing in this situation.
December 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"... floated to the SEIU official the idea of him heading a lucrative non-profit organization... "
Is it just me, or does "lucrative non-profit" sound funny? I'm sure people are paid to manage an organization like this, but, is there really any indication that the job pays a salary that is in excess of what would be thought to be a just compensation?
Using a similar standard, would it be fair to call this "lucrative" characterization as "salacious"?
December 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama doesn't come out of this with any real damage, but I'm still disappointed, and here's why:
Basically we know that this SEIU fellow, this emissary of Obama's preferred candidate, was sent to talk to Blago, without explicit instructions to the effect of "if Blago proposes some corrupt scheme, tell him to blow it out his ass."
Instead, Blago proposed a corrupt scheme, and the SEIU fellow said "OK, I'll check."
Now there is obviously a world of difference between "OK, I'll check" and "Yeah, sounds great," but I think we should expect enough from our leaders that "Blow it out your a$$" should be the only acceptable response.
I know there are many complicated factors here: why needlessly anger someone you want a favor from? Why anger someone powerful from your home state, who may know all the dirt that exists on you? Etc. etc.... those are all true. But still.
Having written this, it occurs to me that we are probably seeing the "behind the scenes" Obama at work here. It has all the hallmarks of Obama: the careful pragmatism, the willingness to play the game (or at least sound like you're playing) but the scrupulous avoidance of anything that could stain his reputation.
To have your emissary say "OK, I'll check" and then (one imagines) someday return to Blago to say "sorry, no deal" -- that is about as low-key, no-drama as you get. No Drama Obama. Someone who knows how to play the players, and come out of it smelling like roses. Someone who will bend just enough to make you hallucinate that he agrees with you, but will scrupulously avoid specifically saying anything committal.
It's a peculiar sort of influence he is wielding. As a strategy it's kind of brilliant, and also deserves close and continued scrutiny.
December 9, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I have some of what you're smoking?
December 10, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lucrative nonprofits? Just ask Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist. They can be very lucrative indeed, in many different ways.
And if I were talking to a corrupt governor who could do me untold damage between now and his indictment, I'd say something noncommittal about his schemes too.
December 9, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink