Monday, October 25, 2010
Guest Blogger - T. Markus Funk
On October 21, 2010, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued its much-anticipated "Phase 3" report. This weighty report formally grades the U.S.'s constantly constricting anti-bribery enforcement noose, concluding that U.S. efforts provide a model other nations seeking to similarly fortify their anti-corruption efforts should emulate.
The OECD points its shaming finger at signatory nations not living up to their anti-bribery obligations, and the organization in its report also identifies certain discrete areas for U.S. improvement. But the deep-dive assessment's bottom-line message is that the U.S. government is out in front – way out front – in its all-out offensive against foreign bribery. And the U.S. is not waiting for others to catch up.
OECD Anti-Bribery Convention: The World's Leading Anti-Bribery Instrument
By way of some background, the historic 1997 OECD "Convention of Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions," adopted by 38 countries, announces standards criminalizing foreign bribery. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, in fact, remains the only such international anti-corruption instrument.
In an effort to encourage compliance, the highly-regarded OECD peer-reviewed Working Group on Bribery Monitoring carefully, and publicly, scrutinizes signatories’ performance. The Working Group, in so doing, takes a holistic approach, collecting input not only from the subject signatory governments, but also from representatives of the private sector and civil society. The end-product is an all-things-considered written assessment which enjoys the high regard of the broader international legal and political community.
In terms of procedure, OECD evaluations take place in phases: Phase 1 evaluates the adequacy of a country’s legislation to implement the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, and Phase 2 assesses whether a country is applying this legislation effectively. Phase 3 then focuses on enforcement of the Convention, the 2009 Anti-Bribery Recommendation, and any earlier recommendations that remain outstanding. An evaluation for good reason feared by many signatory nations, the OECD Phase 3 probing U.S. compliance with the Anti-Bribery Convention will undoubtedly receive a warm, appreciative reception in the Nation's capitol.
For the full text of the OECD Phase 3 report: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/49/46213841.pdf
The corresponding USDOJ press release can be found at http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/1020
By T. Markus Funk (email@example.com). Markus is a partner in Perkins Coie's Investigations and White Collar Defense Group. Markus spent the past 10 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago, Illinois, most recently serving in U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's Public Corruption and Organized Crime Section. Markus' full bio is at www.perkinscoie.com/mfunk
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
NACDL's 6th Annual Defending the White Collar Case Seminar – “Where Do We Go From Here? Honest Services Fraud and Public Corruption,” Thursday, September 30, 2010
Moderator: Abbe David Lowell
The future of honest services fraud—that immensely nebulous charge—was addressed by an afternoon panel comprised of Miguel Estrada, Ross Garber, Hon. Barbara Lynn, Jack Smith (N.D. Tex.), and Tim O’Toole. Abbe Lowell moderated.
The context was set by a complex hypothetical involving government contracts and an amorphous “benefit” without a concrete quid pro quo. In other words, the perfect scenario for a charge-of-last resort. Now that the United States Supreme Court has limited the reach of honest services fraud charges with the recent Skilling opinion, the future of honest services/public corruption charges is unclear. The Court said that bribery and anti-kickback charges are certainly viable in the post-Skilling world, but undisclosed conflicts of interest may no longer be sufficient to state a federal crime. Indictments alleging mushy, apparent benefits short of a concrete quid pro quo, therefore, are vulnerable to challenge.
Here, the hypothetical is one of those mushy cases. The target of the investigation, Reynolds, is a U.S. Congressman and former Texas state legislator. Since the Texas legislature is a part-time gig, Reynolds was employed by Dallas Dynamics when in the State house. Dallas Dynamics is a recipient of state contracts. Reynolds’ compensation from Dallas included a bonus based on business he generated. One year, the state Comptroller, Brown, awarded a contract to Dallas Dynamics after Reynolds introduced Brown to Dallas Dynamics’ CEO, Cowen. As a result of this contract, Reynolds received a $1.5 million bonus. Brown’s office also got increased appropriations thanks to help from legislator Reynolds. Reynolds and Cowen agreed to pay his bonus out over the course of 8 years. As a result, there was no discernible spike in Reynolds’ income. Reynolds reported his income from Dallas Dynamics, but did not particularize the salary and bonus amounts or reveal that part of his compensation was based on bringing in business. Dallas Dynamics hired Reynolds’ son soon after receiving the government contract. Finally, after becoming a U.S. Congressman, Reynolds could no longer earn new income from outside work, but he did disclose the remaining years of amounts owed to him by Dallas Dynamics in the same way as he did while in the state house.
A key preliminary issue identified was the need for separate representation for Reynolds, for Cowen, for Brown, and possibly for the son too. This issue of ensuring no conflict in representation is a theme that has run through several of the panels today. The broad consensus is that the more separate lawyers, the better. Even if individuals sign conflict waivers, the better practice is to provide separate counsel. From a judicial perspective, conflicts are not only problems for the immediate case, but down the road in case one of the targets is convicted and later raises the conflict issue as a habeas petition. The possibility of collateral attacks and ineffective assistance claims make separate representation all the more important and prudent.
Adding to the need for more lawyers in the hypothetical investigation, entities such as the Comptroller’s Office and the Texas legislature will likely receive investigative subpoenas. Because these agencies and entities need to protect themselves against allegations of spoliation or even obstruction, separate, independent counsel is very important.
This led to a discussion of joint-defense agreements, whether they should be written or oral, and whether the prosecutor could challenge a joint defense agreement under the theory that it is tantamount to a joint representation conflict? It’s probably unlikely that a court would declare a joint defense agreement null and void. But, if someone in the joint defense pleads out, there may be judicial oversight, requiring, for example, notice to the other members if one person is going to start talking to the government.
Going back to the hypothetical, is a case viable if it alleges that as a state senator, Reynolds failed to disclose properly his true benefit from Dallas Dynamics because the bonus payment was not separately disclosed? Reynolds appears to have gotten an improper benefit by introducing Brown to Cowen and the business-generation bonus was hidden.
Now, after Skilling (and Black) limited the breadth/application of the honest services statute, it is much more difficult to bring a viable indictment under that theory case because there is no evidence of an explicit agreement.
Post-Skilling, do you have to allege there was a quid pro quo? Unclear. If the theory is bribery, probably so. But, if you make this hypothetical into a kickback case, you may be able to allege that Reynolds got a kickback in the form of his bonus by using his public office to arrange the contract. By creative pleading, such as using section 371 (conspiracy) and section 666 (bribery), an indictment might survive even without an allegation of a concrete quid pro quo. If it does not allege an actual bribery or kickback, such allegations are vulnerable to a bill of particulars and a mere failure-to-disclosure scenario is probably no longer enough. Additionally, the line between illegitimate “gratuity” and legitimate, e.g., campaign contributions is very hard to draw.
But ultimately, how big is the gap that Skilling left? The consensus is that some creative pleading of conspiracy, bribery/kickback charges can probably survive initial motions to dismiss. There may be proof issues, particularly at the Rule 29 stage, but such charges are probably sufficient in the first instance.
Finally, Congress is now looking at how to fill the “gap” left by the Skilling case—trying to find a way to make the mushy case that the Supreme Court kicked out again subject to prosecution. Senator Leahy’s current gap-filling measure criminalizes the failure to disclose a benefit that was “in whole or in part” motivated by a private interest.
My ultimate take from the discussion is that while the narrowing of honest services charges is indeed a boon to defense lawyers and the accused, and should impose upon prosecutors a higher bar to charging public corruption cases, the ultimate fallout is unclear. There are plenty of arrows left in the government’s quiver and Congress seems eager to simply provide more ammo. Time will tell, but a cynic (e.g., a criminal defense lawyer) would guess that the victory—as important and monumental as it was—may prove academic for all but a handful of individuals…and ultimately short-lived.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The former Governor of Illinois is convicted on one Section 1001 count while the jury hangs on the other 23 charges. The jury hangs on all counts against Blago's brother. The Los Angeles Times has the story here. When the testimony wrapped up two weeks ago, Esquire asked its reporter John Bohrer to pretend he was a juror and opine on the outcome. Bohrer's analysis of the evidence is here. In a remarkable bit of prescience, Bohner noted that, "the Government couldn't close the deal. And that's why I'm voting to acquit." Bohrer still hated Blago, but did not feel that he belonged in prison or was worth the expense to prosecute. "I'll hand it to the prosecution on one of these charges: It does seem like he stone-cold lied to the FBI when they questioned him about whether he mixed state business with fundraising." Pretty close call. Pretty amazing.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson will represent Mississippi attorney Paul Minor in his upcoming appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Olson, now with the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, moved immediately into action with an extension of time application that provides clues as to the arguments that will be forthcoming. For openers Minor's convictions are tied to the "honest services" statute, a statute under review this term in three cases (Skilling, Black, and Weyrauch). Also mentioned is the tension between the Fifth Circuit's decision in Minor's case and the McCormick and Sun-Diamond Supreme Court decisions that necessitate a quid pro quo. The Fifth Circuit had previously vacated the convictions premised on section 666 and remanded the case for resentencing. The Fifth Circuit in its decision also noted that both the McCormick and Evans cases "left open the question of what level of specificity is required to prove a quid pro quo in regard to the 'quo' or agreed-upon official act." What is particularly fascinating about this case is that it has "honest services" but also includes bribery allegations. If 1346 is unconstitutionally vague this issues may be resolved. But if the Court distinguishes bribery cases under honest services fraud, it may open up other arguments on when a bribery would fall within the reach of the "honest services" fraud statute.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) emphasizes transparency, but it did take me some time to find the website that told me what was going on in this office. It is easy if you put SIGTARP into Google, but not so easy - at least for me - if you try and find it within the Treasury Department website. For those who are looking, you'll find it here. The office issued its Quarterly Report here. It states in part:
SIGTARP’s Investigations Division has developed into a sophisticated whitecollar investigative agency. Through September 30, 2009, SIGTARP has opened 61 and has 54 ongoing criminal and civil investigations. These investigations include complex issues concerning suspected TARP fraud, accounting fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, bank fraud, mortgage fraud, mortgage servicer misconduct, fraudulent advance-fee schemes, public corruption, false statements, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax-related investigations. While the vast majority of SIGTARP’s investigative activity remains confidential, developments in several of SIGTARP’s investigations have become public over the past quarter . . .
I am not impressed with the statement that resulted in Huffington's Post headline that TARP Fraud Probes Have Tripled Since April, Says Watchdog. The numbers should be increasing enormously - after all this is a relatively new office. But it is good to see that this office is getting off the ground, being staffed, and now moving to stop fraud occurring in the use of TARP funds.
Friday, October 16, 2009
A DOJ Press Release reports that "Former General Services Administration (GSA) Chief of Staff David H. Safavian was sentenced today to one year in prison on charges of obstruction of justice and making false statements in connection with the investigation into the activities of former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff." He also received two years of supervised release.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
NACDL's 5th Annual Defending the White Collar Case Seminar - "Pay to Play - The Current Wave of Public Corruption Cases," Thursday, October 1, 2009
Guest Blogger: Linda Friedman Ramirez, P.A. (Tampa St. Petersburg, FL)
Panel Moderator: Abbe David Lowell
NACDL's 5th Annual White Collar Crime Conference kicked off today with the Pay to Play
panelists jumping into a thorough discussion of the key issues in the
defense of a public corruption case via a hypothetical created by panel
moderator Abbe Lowell.
The panel agreed that attorneys are needed for all individuals and
entities subpoenaed. The first question is whether joint defense
agreements are more problematic than helpful. There seemed to be a
consensus that there might be some benefits, particularly when working
with attorneys with whom there has been no prior experience or quirky
clients, but most panelists expressed reservations about their use.
Next up - the panelists discussed the subpoena for records relating
to the legislative process and the Speech and Debate privilege. Who
asserts? The panel propounded on the importance of collaboration
between the attorney for Alice and the attorney for House. Also, how to
handle keeping back documents that may be privileged and the concept of
using a privilege log? TheDOJ’s view of the Speech and Debate clause is in a great deal of flux, and DOJ’s view has changed radically. Further, if it is a federal subpoena does this change anything? And how does the counsel for Funhouse
handle its own subpoena? The four panelists explored the issues
relevant to subpoenas for contribution records and the intersection
with the First Amendment.
Another important issue for practitioners is how to respond to precharge or pretrial publicity in high profile cases, including responding to questions by investigative reporters. Clients often have a strong desire to speak to the public. Different responses from the panelists: give clients a limited script; have the attorney act as spokesperson -- though that raises the concern for attorneys of moving into the realm of public relations; hiring surrogates.
Also, what happens if a client wants to make his case to the prosecutor? Is this a good strategy? Of course the most important issues are whether the facts are sufficient for a prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1346? Is conflict of interest + non-disclosure enough under this statute? This was the meat of the panel and the discussion was exciting and demonstrated the knowledge of the panel. Also, Moderator Abbe Lowell injected into the discussion 18 U.S.C. 666, which is the jurisdictional statute for prosecution of offenses committed by state public officials and the requirement of a connection with the receipt of federal funds 18 U.S.C 666 (b).
By the close of the panel it was clear that an hour and a half was not nearly enough time to explore this topic!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Supreme Court accepted for certiorari the case of U.S. v. Weyhrauch (see here), a case involving honest services mail fraud. The court earlier had accepted for cert another mail fraud case with a different issue (Conrad Black's case here). The Ninth Circuit, in anticipation of the Weyhrauch case, stayed the issuance of a mandate in U.S. v Inzuna. The Ninth Circuit, however, did go ahead and affirm the district court's judgments against two former members of the San Diego City Council. The court adopts what it terms "the majority rule" -- "that private gain is not an element of honest services fraud." In so doing it rejects strong precedent coming from the Seventh Circuit. The Ninth Circuit also rejected a requirement to "prove an independent violation of state law to sustain an honest services fraud conviction." There are other issues in the case, such as those related to the Hobbs Act and arguments premised on objections to closing arguments. The key in this case will be how the Supreme Court decides the Weyhrauch case.
U.S. v. Inzuna - Download Honest Services Fraud - US v Inzunza - 9th Cir 9-1-09
See also Kevin Cole, "Strippergate" Appeal, CrimProf Blog here
(esp) (w/ a hat tip to Evan Jenness)
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The press (e.g., Washington Post here; NOLA.com here; BLT Blog here) is reporting that the jury will receive ex-congressman's William Jefferson's case tomorrow. The Indictment included counts related to bribery, RICO, money laundering, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and Obstruction of Justice.
From these press reports, it sounds like one interesting question that the jury will be examining is whether his activities meet the definition of an "official act" for purposes of the bribery statute. The government is required to prove that the accused acted corruptly to influence an official act. The statute defines "official act" as "any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit." The definition has been the subject of prior court controversy. For example, in the case of U.S. v. Muntain(DC Cir. 1979) the defendant argued "that his actions were not 'official acts' in that they did not involve matters that would be brought before him in his official capacity. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals accepted this argument, finding that the promotion of group automobile insurance was not a matter that would be brought before Muntain in his capacity as the Secretary of Labor Relations at HUD." See Podgor & Israel, White Collar Crime in a Nutshell 4th 115 (2009).
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Back in the 1970s and 80s, the FBI ran an undercover operation to stop corruption by government officials. Convictions included a New Jersey Senator, members of Congress and others. The government set up a phony business to lure individuals to commit crimes, and despite claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct, many of the convictions stood.
Fast forward 30 years and we see the government again is using an undercover operation to arrest many politicians and some religious leaders. The charges are no longer simple bribery or conspiracy charges. Rather now we see newer statutes, like money laundering, statutes that carry more significant penalties.
An Acting US Attorney is proud to say that he is behind charges against "mayors of Hoboken, Secaucus and Ridgefield, the Jersey City deputy mayor and council president, two state assemblymen, numerous other public officials and political figures," and yes community religious leaders. The long list of complaints and press release can be found here. But as one reads these complaints one has to wonder about the "CW" - cooperating witness - that seems to be behind so many of these cases. One also has to wonder what if any individual gains or profits accrued to each of the individuals charged with the alleged crimes. Finally one has to wonder why the government felt a "perp walk" was necessary here. Did they really think these individuals would flee, destroy evidence, or not turn themselves in voluntarily?
See also, Ted Sherman & Joe Ryan, NJ.com, Massive N.J. corruption sting targets mayors, legislators, rabbis
NYTimes (AP), 2 Mayors Arrested in Broad N.J. Corruption Sweep
In this same US Attorney's Office, just a couple of days ago, an assemblyman and former mayor had a new charge added to his Indictment alleging that "he participated in a scheme with his former key political advisor to circumvent the contribution limitation and reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act." (see here).
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is in the middle of conducting a corruption investigation - a Pay-to-Play kickback scheme - with the past chair of the former state liberal party being mentioned in this investigation. In a press release by Cuomo's office it states that the individual allegedly "obtained over $800,000 in illegal fees on State pension fund investments as a reward for opening up a State Assembly seat . . .and for over 30 years of prior political endorsements." "Cuomo also announced that hedge fund manager and classical music impresario Barrett Wissman has pled guilty to a Martin Act felony for his role in the pay-to-play scheme and will pay $12 million in penalties and forfeiture to New York State over a period of three years." The SEC previously had complaints against two individuals in this matter, but added the former leader of the New York Liberal Party and Wissman to the SEC complaint. (see here) The New York Times reported on this recent investigation related to pension funds. See Danny Hakim & Mary Williams Walsh, NYTimes, In State Pension Inquiry, a Scandal Snowballs.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Rod Blagojevich and 5 others were indicted in a 75 page document that included a myriad of different federal statutes, such a mail and wire fraud, false statements and RICO. The Indictment with its 19 counts (16 against Blagojevich) claim that he "allegedly used his office in numerous matters involving state appointments, business, legislation and pension fund investments to seek or obtain such financial benefits as money, campaign contributions, and employment for himself and others, in exchange for official actions, including trying to leverage his authority to appoint a United States Senator." One interesting aspect of the Indictment is how prosecutors framed the Enterprise for the RICO charge. They call it the "Blagojevich Enterprise." The enterprise is an association in fact comprised of "defendant Rod Blagojevich, the Office of the Governor of Illinois, and Friends of Blogojevich." Will Blagojevich have any friends left by the time this case progresses to trial, if in fact it does?
DOJ Press Release here.
Friday, March 6, 2009
As noted here, the 11th Circuit issued its decision in the appellate case involving former Governor Don Siegelman and former CEO of HealthSouth Richard Scrushy. Some of the key points in the decision -
- the court found sufficient evidence "that a reasonable juror could have concluded that Siegelman and Scrushy explicitly agreed to a corrupt quid pro quo"
- the government did not prove that "Siegelman knew that Scrushy intended to defraud Alabama of his honest services while on the Board and that Siegelman personally intended to participate in this fraud."
- although the jury was exposed to extrinsic evidence, it was harmless and the court "did not abuse its discretion in holding that there was no reasonable possibility of prejudice to the defendants arising out of the exposure of the jury to this extrinsic evidence and denying the motion for a new trial"
The court affirmed Scrushy's convictions and reversed two counts of Seigelman's convictions. Seigelman gets a resentencing because of the reversal of Counts 8 and 9.
What happens now? Scrushy and Seigelman have the next step to go - asking for an en banc hearing and perhaps a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. But the political arena may be the avenue that we hear the most noise from in the immediate future, as Karl Rove is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. See Huffington Post, Karl Rove Agrees to Testify
Monday, February 23, 2009
An executive business meeting is set for the Senate Judiciary Committee for February 26, 2009. On the agenda are S. 386 - Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and S. 49 - Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act (see here). The most troublesome aspect of this latter bill is its attempt to provide increased prosecutorial power on mail and wire fraud offenses. Section 3 is titled, "Application of Mail and Wire Fraud Statutes to Licenses and Other Intangible Rights." It looks like an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Cleveland, where the Court held that licenses were not property for purposes of mail fraud. Imagine this scenario - a person answers a question incorrectly on their mailed application for a fishing license. Assuming other aspects of the statute being met, the government would now be able to prosecute them federally for mail fraud. Adding the words "or any other thing of value" might not include licenses, but the title of this provision sure is an attempt to try to increase prosecutorial power to include them. There needs to be some limits to this already near limitless statute, and this provision is not moving in the correct direction.
(esp)(w/ a hat tip to Tiffany Joslyn of NACDL)
Friday, January 30, 2009
The new Illinois Governor, as his first executive order, has decided to take on the fight against corruption in government. He issued an Executive Order creating the Illinois Reform Commission that has several purposes including "to undertake a focused evaluation of both existing Illinois law and the operational practices of the State of Illinois from the perspective of ethics in government, proposing, as the Commission deems appropriate, amendments to existing law." Although Governor Pat Quinn established this commission before former Governor Rod Blagojevich's impeachment and conviction, this act was his first Executive Order, sending the clear message that he means business.
Friday, January 2, 2009
More on Pardons & Commutations -
Charlie Savage NYTimes, has an article titled On Fast Track for Clemency, via the Oval Office and there are wonderful follow-ups from P.S. Ruckman Jr., Pardon Power, ABC News: Pardon Breakdown and The Times: On Pardons and Access . Some observations -
- The process has its issues and those who are less fortunate and don't have a connection may not have as good a chance of securing a pardon or commutation.
- Politics and/or influence may have played a factor and this needs to be scrutinized.
- The press is monitoring every pardon issued.
It's this last point that interests me. We see newspapers cutting staffs and suffering from the economy and also the effect of the Internet. Investigative reporters have served an important role in society and in uncovering many corruption and white collar crimes. So, too, they serve an important role in keeping the government in check. Will this continue and what happens if we lose the power of the press?
Addendum, Mary Flood, Houston Chronicle, Pardon watch on as transition nears -But it's doubtful any Houstonians will make the cut
Friday, December 12, 2008
Some additional thoughts and references on the Blogojevich case -
- It seems clear that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is now presenting the case to a grand jury. See Todd Lightly & Robert Becker, Chicago Tribune, Tribune Co. subpoenaed in Blagojevich probe (it seems a bit odd to hear the CEO of the Tribune Co. saying to the press that he will not be interviewed)
- Howard Kurtz,Washington Post, Media Notes, discusses a point mentioned here regarding the appropriateness of Patrick Fitzgerald characterizing the evidence to the press. Kurtz notes that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald may have gone "beyond describing the allegations contained in the criminal complaint" - Kurtz provides a statement from the Illinois Disciplinary Rule concerning such statements. But to add to what Mr. Kurtz has written, there is also the ABA Prosecution Function Standards that instructs prosecutors not to make extrajudicial statements that "the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know ... will have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding," and the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Fair Trial and Free Press that question whether a prosecutor should make a statement that speaks to an "opinion of the lawyer on the guilt of the defendant, the merits of the case or the merits of the evidence in the case." (8-1.1). And we haven't even mentioned the internal guidelines of the DOJ on this issue. (see John Steele, Legal Ethic Forum here)
- And then there is the most important question of whether the evidence is really there that provides evidence of any crimes. See Mike Robinson, Houston Chronicle (AP), Are Blagojevich tapes enough evidence to convict?
- Politicians face additional issues when under investigation or when charged with a crime. The parallel proceeding may be an impeachment process. See Ray Long, Chicago Tribune, Quinn: Impeach Rod, let me pick Obama replacement
- One thing is certain - this case will continue to be in the news over the next month.
(esp)(w/ a hat tip to Mark Johnson for the Howard Kurtz piece).