The Pioneer Press is reporting that the FBI is poking into the allegations of palm-greasing involving Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN).

Blago fallout, transition updates, and the day’s other political news in the TPM Election Central Morning Roundup.

Republicans are demanding, somewhat self-servedly, that Obama affirmatively state that he’ll keep Patrick Fitzgerald on as U.S. attorney for Northern Illinois. Turns out Obama has already said as much.

I didn’t realize until Dan Abrams just mentioned it on MSNBC that Blagojevich is a lawyer. Not just any lawyer but a former prosecutor. What an idiot.

TPM Reader EM ponders the Norm Coleman-Rod Blagojevich connection:

How does this work again? If you’re in the Senate you have better resources for fighting corruption charges against you, and it also make you ready to run for president? This may be Norm’s thinking too.

ABC is reporting that Jesse Jackson, Jr. is ‘senate candidate #5′. Wiretaps suggest that Blagojevich believed that emissaries of Jackson had offered up to a million dollars to appoint him to serve in the senate.

It’s important to note that this is unnamed ’emissaries’ who Blagojevich told others had made offers to him. So there’s a lot of wiggle room for misunderstandings, lying (mainly Blagojevich) and people freelancing, doing or saying things Jackson knew nothing about.

But there’s no getting around the fact that this puts Jackson right in the middle of this mess, whether or not it turns out to be because of anything of his own doing.

This passage from ABC’s article says a lot …

Jackson Jr. said this morning he was contacted yesterday by federal prosecutors in Chicago who he said “asked me to come in and share with them my insights and thoughts about the selection process.”

Jackson Jr. said “I don’t know” when asked if he was Candidate #5, but said he was told “I am not a target of this investigation.”

Jackson Jr. said he agreed to talk with federal investigators “as quickly as possible” after he consults with a lawyer.

Obama issues statement calling on Blagojevich to resign.

Last night I mentioned today’s New York Times article that suggests a fairly perverse reading of Obama’s decision last year to lobby for an Illinois state law to tighten up ethics rules to crackdown on pay-for-play deals. The Times suggests this is evidence of Obama’s inability to escape the taint of Chicago politics whereas it seems more reasonably to put him more clearly on the side of reform.

That point aside though, there’s an interesting kernel contained in the Times piece that I’m curious about. The piece suggests that after Obama lobbied and the senate overrode Blagojevich’s veto, the passage of the bill spurred “the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law’s restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.”

So it was the deadline created by the state ethics bill that Obama helped push through that was the spur for the “spree” of corruption that led Fitzgerald’s prosecutors to get the wiretaps that uncovered the alleged attempted senate seat sale.

Now, a few questions. David Kurtz and I were chatting about this. And it seems at least a bit of a strain to believe that a change in ethics rules could prompt such a wholesale, hog-wild leap into criminality. On the other hand, one could speculate that he wanted to rake in as many iffy contributions as possible before the new year and just went overboard. And this is what the prosecutors’ statement claims. And, frankly, the whole story makes Blagojevich sound a bit unhinged in addition to a lot crooked. So I’m not sure rationality is the best standard through which to understand any of this.

Curious to hear people’s thoughts on this.

TPM Reader KP is not satisfied with Obama’s response to the Blago scandal …

Sounding like President Bush is no way to begin your administration.

Obama should canvass his entire Chicago staff, find out who talked to the governor or his assistant, take that information to Fitzgerald and ask Fitz how much of this information he can share publicly. Then, he should answer all reporters’ questions. If something is asked that Fitz doesn’t want discussed, Obama can say that.

Then turn the entire matter over to his communications team for any future questions. Then move on to the task of governing.

You’d think after all these scandals, the PR template would be clear.

I guess not.

I don’t think I’m ready to be that critical yet. I’m sure they spent a lot of time yesterday trying to make sense of what had happened. And I’m heartened by the fact that there seems to be ample evidence in the criminal complaint suggesting the hostility Blagojevich had for Obama because his people wouldn’t play ball. Indeed, the prosecutors say that it was the ethics bill Obama was instrumental in getting passed that prompted Blagojevich’s spree. Still, the response seemed a bit weak to me too.

At a panel last week on justice in the post-Bush era, Scott Horton of Harper’s explained to TPMtv why the Justice Department may not be the best venue to lead investigations of the Bush years. Also: Horton says members of the Obama transition team have asked him “penetrating questions” about his December cover story on how we should investigate — and potentially prosecute — Bush-era lawbreakers …

Full-size video at TPMtv.com.