What Keeps Obama Up At Night?
Did President-elect Obama schedule his resignation from the Senate in order to shut down an embarrassing investigation of his personal finances by the Senate Ethics Committee?
This is a question the new President has at least temporarily suppressed as he embarks on what he himself has pledged will be the most transparent administration in history. Yet the matter is not squelched so easily. As one source told FrumForum.com: “Barack Obama is a very calm man. But if there is anything keeping him up at night – this is it.”
Many senators have moved from Congress to the executive branch before Barack Obama. But none has ever quit the Senate so quickly.
Vice President-elect Joe Biden, for example, resigned from the Senate five days before he took the Oath of Office. Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton will resign only after she is confirmed. In 1993, Al Gore resigned from the Senate 18 days before Inauguration Day. Dan Quayle quit 17 days before in 1989. Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey each resigned 21 days in advance; John F. Kennedy, 31.
The reasons for postponement of resignation are manifold. They range from the party’s need for a vote to the senator’s personal need for a paycheck
Yet Barack Obama, not a wealthy man, resigned from a closely divided Senate 66 days before his swearing in as president - a modern record.
At the time of his resignation, Obama aides explained their boss' urgency on background to The New York Times: "[A]dvisers said he wanted to avoid the awkward position of returning to the Senate to cast a ballot should his vote be needed" to pass economic legislation.
That explanation was never very convincing: The Bush administration's requests for TARP funds have passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support, with no need for Obama's vote.
Knowledgeable sources familiar with Obama's background suggest another explanation for his hasty resignation:
They ask whether the President-elect acted to dodge a possible investigation of his personal finances by the Senate Ethics Committee.
In 2005, Obama accepted ethically dubious financial assistance from Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a Chicago land developer now convicted on wire and mail fraud, money laundering, and aiding and abetting bribery. The exact value of Rezko's assistance is disputed. It is uncertain whether the benefit violated any federal law. What does seem clear, however, is that the benefit likely violated Senate ethics rules, which forbid Senators from receiving gifts with a monetary value of more than $50. There are exceptions to this rule, but real estate transactions are not among them.
The Rezko case got relatively little attention during the 2008 campaign, but while Rezko awaits sentencing and continues to cooperate with the feds, the case may return to the news. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is reportedly pressuring Rezko to provide more details about his apparently corrupt dealings with Chicago-area politicians.
With the Senate in special session in November and December – and Rezko talking – Obama was at risk of having his own personal case brought before the Ethics Committee.
The Ethics Committee, however, only has jurisdiction over sitting Senators. By resigning so early, Obama removed himself from the committee’s power – and, if our sources are correct, – squelched an ethics case before it could begin.
If so, call it a first taste of the Chicago way on the national stage.
/a>
Image courtesy of realjameso16. http://www.flickr.com/photos/