PDA

View Full Version : Illinois Governer Facing Corruption Charges


ForeverNight
12-09-2008, 08:02 PM
Source (http://www.kyivpost.com/world/31779)

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested on corruption charges on Tuesday, including trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by fellow Democrat President-elect Barack Obama, federal prosecutors said.

Interesting, no? What is it about Politicians from Illinois?

jrrtoken
12-09-2008, 08:21 PM
Just blame it on Capone. :p

TKA-001
12-09-2008, 09:32 PM
True story: When my family and I went on a vacation to Springfield, we visited the capitol building, and they let my brother sit in the governor's chair just because he asked. On our way out, I asked him how he had come up with the idea of asking, and he said "Fortune favors the bold."

Chevron 7 locke
12-09-2008, 10:20 PM
So how many years will this guy be looking at if he's found guilty?

The Doctor
12-10-2008, 01:31 AM
What is it about Politicians from Illinois?

If that's a stab at Obama, I'ma kick you.

Q
12-10-2008, 01:56 AM
It makes me think about how many Illinois governors have ended up in the Big House since i was a kid.

I'm not sure: three, maybe?

ForeverNight
12-10-2008, 09:28 AM
If that's a stab at Obama, I'ma kick you.

I was originally going to say Chicago, but since Springfield is the capital it's wouldn't work.

Hell, maybe it is a stab at Obama, I don't know yet. Once his years are over and History can look in with it's supra-powered microscope, than we'll find out. So, for now, consider it a stab at every corrupt politician to come out of Illinois.

Don't kick me... please.

The Doctor
12-10-2008, 11:48 AM
Alright, I won't kick you, but I am getting very sick of conservatives trying to label Obama a terrorist, a liar, or some kind of communist nut job. And your original post seemed like a thinly veiled attempt to call him corrupt. I apologise if this wasn't the case.

ForeverNight
12-10-2008, 06:12 PM
Nope, not the case at all.

Tysyacha
12-10-2008, 07:54 PM
I'm from Illinois, and I'm proud to say I voted for an indicted Governor! *LOL*

Tommycat
12-10-2008, 10:38 PM
Alright, I won't kick you, but I am getting very sick of conservatives trying to label Obama a terrorist, a liar, or some kind of communist nut job. And your original post seemed like a thinly veiled attempt to call him corrupt. I apologise if this wasn't the case.

Haha it's no great secret that Illinois has a less than stellar record when it comes to political scandals.

Besides, can you say you are not guilty of doing the same to Republicans? I mean I have been tired of hearing the "not my president" junk for the past 8 years. Labeling Bush as a moron, racist, and several other not so nice things. Just wait til the conservative talking heads actually have some "REAL" dirt to pin on Obama. It's gonna get a lot worse. You should probably get thicker skin.

No biggie to me though. I intend to give OUR president a shot to prove he's a good man. He's got a rough job ahead of him.

ForeverNight
12-11-2008, 09:17 AM
I agree, but that's for another thread.

Try this one: The Offical Obama Debate Thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=194417)

Yar-El has already posted something about this already in that thread. However, this is just for talk about this topic, not about Obama and his connection to the Governor.

Jae Onasi
12-11-2008, 02:37 PM
What surprises me is how brazen he was about what he said--he had to know he was being watched, and yet said all these things anyway. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg of a huge corruption problem--I believe the attorney general moved so quickly because the feds were concerned that someone was going to buy the Senate seat and that would have created even greater problems. The feds got a court order for a wiretap of his home and office only in October. "Candidates 1-5" I'm sure will start singing if there's even a hint of wrongdoing. Rep. Jackson held a press conference yesterday to insist he hadn't tried to buy the seat himself, he apparently was candidate #5. What I found very interesting was that Jackson had not had a meeting with Blagojevich in 4 years--this is a Congressman from Chicago, representing IL in the House of Representatives. How could a governor not meet with someone at this level of politics for 4 years? That's just crazy.

Further, apparently Gov. Rod wanted to be appointed to a cabinet position in exchange for appointing whoever Obama wanted to the seat, and had aspirations of running for the Presidency in '12 or '16. Obama has denied any involvement directly or through staff on this matter.

Oh--my 'favorites' in this--trying to hold back a half million in funds to Children's hospital in Chicago if the CEO didn't give Rod a cut of that money, and when the CEO didn't pay up, told his staff to take the money back. Even better--trying to shake down the Chicago Tribune. Hello--trying to shake down a newspaper? How long do you think that would stay out of the newspaper, Rod? The Tribune Corp practically salivated when they were able to break the story so quickly when Rod got arrested.

Pat Quinn is already calling for an impeachment of Blagojevich--some would say "Of course, because he becomes Gov. when that happens." However, the way he words things makes me think there's no love lost between the 2 men.

As this was straying into Obama territory, I've closed this and moved the latest post over the The Official Obama thread found here; http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=194417 Please continue the discussion there. - Thanks -- j7

Since Rod is becoming such a hot topic, I moved posts pertaining only to Hot Rod from the Obama thread to here and merged it with a closed thread. Carry on. :) --Jae

jrrtoken
12-15-2008, 08:10 PM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98300727&ft=1&f=1003

The Obama SuperFriends have filed their report determining that he and his staff had no contact with Blagojevich. Of course, since this was conducted by the Obama staff themselves, you may question it, since it wasn't conducted by the Department of Justice or some other government organization.

Jae Onasi
12-16-2008, 10:46 AM
Think about this, though--if you're President-elect, and you know your seat is going to be open, why wouldn't you be having contact with the guy who's going to appoint your replacement? Saying no one on Obama's team had contact with Rod is quite unbelievable given the importance of the IL Senate seat. It would absolutely be in Obama's interest to make sure someone friendly to him, and more importantly a friendly Democrat, was appointed to his seat, especially since the Democrats are so close to a super-majority in the Senate.

We know Rahm Emanuel had contact with Blagojevich's people about the Senate seat. See article in Chicago Tribune here (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rahm-obama13dec13,0,3359611.story). This comes as no surprise--Emanuel is friends with both Obama and Rod, and Emanuel won the House seat that Rod once held prior to winning the election for IL governor. I would expect to see more information to come out on Emanuel and Rod and discussions about the Senate seat.

December 13, 2008

Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be White House chief of staff, had conversations with Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration about who would replace Obama in the U.S. Senate, the Tribune has learned.

The revelation does not suggest Obama's new gatekeeper was involved in any talk of dealmaking involving the seat. But it does help fill in the gaps surrounding a question that Obama was unable or unwilling to answer this week: Did anyone on his staff have contact with Blagojevich about his choice for the Senate seat?

Blagojevich and John Harris, his former chief of staff, face federal charges in an alleged shakedown involving the vacant Senate seat, which Illinois law grants the governor sole authority to fill.

Obama said Thursday he had never spoken to Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy and was "confident that no representatives" of his had engaged in any dealmaking over the seat with the governor or his team. He also pledged Thursday that in the "next few days" he would explain what contacts his staff may have had with the governor's office about the Senate vacancy.

Emanuel, who has long been close to both Blagojevich and Obama, has refused to respond to questions about any involvement he may have had with the Blagojevich camp over the Senate pick. A spokeswoman for Emanuel also declined to comment Friday.

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor's administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be "acceptable" to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.

Blagojevich and Harris, who resigned his state post Friday, are charged with plotting to sell the selection of Obama's replacement in exchange for lucrative jobs or campaign cash for the governor. Among other things, a government affidavit filed with the charges claimed that Blagojevich had kicked around the idea of using his Senate selection to leverage an appointment to an ambassadorship or Cabinet post in the Obama administration.

Federal authorities have not suggested Obama or his team knew about Blagojevich's alleged schemes.

In an interview, Schakowsky said she spoke to Emanuel on Thursday and he seemed unfazed by the controversy.

Schakowsky also spoke of a conversation she had with Emanuel shortly after he was named chief of staff. She said she called Emanuel him "to get some intelligence" on whether Obama might approve of her selection as senator.

"He indicated that the president-elect would be fine with certain people and I was one of them," Schakowsky said.

Schakowsky said it was natural for Obama to take an interest in the selection process for his Senate seat. "It makes perfect sense for the president-elect or his people to have some interaction about filling the seat he was vacating," she said.

Though now working full-time on Obama's transition, Emanuel has yet to resign his congressional seat. Illinois law has a different process for filling vacant House seats than Senate seats. When Emanuel resigns, a special election will be held for his replacement.

One alleged scheme outlined in the charges against Blagojevich involves the special election for Emanuel's seat. The government affidavit said Blagojevich and others were recorded talking about an unnamed "president-elect adviser" concerned about the election for Emanuel's congressional seat who might help the governor land a new job at a non-profit organization.

Tribune reporter David Heinzmann contributed to this report.

The Chicago Tribune has complete coverage here (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-rodblagojevich-storygallery,0,6150647.storygallery).

@ The Doctor:
Transcript of the Good morning American (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/bill_ayers_on_abcs_good_mornin.html) interview. However Ayers wants to characterize it and dodge it with careful language, he was friends with Obama, and denying that is unwise. The more important question is how much influence Ayers' ideas on activism and education have on Obama policies. I'm going to assume Ayers isn't giving Obama tips on how to bomb the Pentagon, however.

Achilles
12-16-2008, 01:16 PM
The Obama SuperFriends have filed their report determining that he and his staff had no contact with Blagojevich.Question: if Obama has agreed to withhold the report at the request of the investigating prosecutor, how do we know what it says?

Jae Onasi
12-17-2008, 02:34 PM
I broke these posts off of the Obama thread and merged it with the closed thread on Blagojevich, because I think the issue of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's indictment and his alleged attempt to sell the Senate seat being vacated by Obama when the latter is sworn in as President merits its own discussion.

Note that this is an Ayers-free zone. Any posts about Bill Ayers will be deleted as off-topic unless Ayers is specifically involved and named in this or any future indictments of Blagojevich.

GarfieldJL
12-19-2008, 05:24 PM
I found an article of interest that pretty much shows that there appears to be a pattern of this behavior all the way back to the late 1980s.

Newsbusters: ABC News Sat on Blago Bookie Mob Boss Charge for years. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/12/18/abc-news-sat-blago-bookie-mob-charge-years)

This means that people knew he was corrupt, at least the media knew. This would have been out in 30 seconds after they got the story if it were a Republican (slight exageration but not by much).

jonathan7
12-19-2008, 05:33 PM
I found an article of interest that pretty much shows that there appears to be a pattern of this behavior all the way back to the late 1980s.

Newsbusters: ABC News Sat on Blago Bookie Mob Boss Charge for years. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/12/18/abc-news-sat-blago-bookie-mob-charge-years)

This means that people knew he was corrupt, at least the media knew. This would have been out in 30 seconds after they got the story if it were a Republican (slight exageration but not by much).

How about a decent source? I don't count that Newsbusters crap as a source, while there maybe a "liberal bias" in the media currently - I don't know how you can legitimately count that as being anything less than an awful lot more biased than the "liberal media".

GarfieldJL
12-19-2008, 05:37 PM
How about a decent source? I don't count that Newsbusters crap as a source, while there maybe a "liberal bias" in the media currently - I don't know how you can legitimately count that as being anything less than an awful lot more biased than the "liberal media".

Actually, I checked their sources (which was in the article I might add) and they are telling the truth, they provided valid sources to back up what they said in the article.

Several years ago, when Mr. Blagojevich was running for re-election, Cooley provided the same information to the ABC7 I-Team. Because Cooley did not want to be identified at the time and the governor denied it, ABC7 did not report the story. --ABC 7 NEWS -- Blagojevich was bookie, says federal informant (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6559104)

There, straight from the horse's mouth which confirms what Newsbusters said.

Furthermore News busters provided a situation on the Republican side that the liberal media jumped all over and it wasn't even remotely as serious: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0406180364jun18,0,7479994.story

Oh and guess who the Opponent was: Barack Obama

Not trying to drag Obama into this but making a point that Newsbusters did their research.

The Doctor
12-19-2008, 07:03 PM
Actually, I checked their sources (which was in the article I might add) and they are telling the truth, they provided valid sources to back up what they said in the article.

--ABC 7 NEWS -- Blagojevich was bookie, says federal informant (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6559104)

There, straight from the horse's mouth which confirms what Newsbusters said.
I think I understand now - when a news organisation contradicts what Fox News or some similar wrong- right-wing source claims, it's biased and left-sided and completely baseless. But if that same source states something in support of what you want it to, it's suddenly a valid source. :dozey:

Furthermore News busters provided a situation on the Republican side that the liberal media jumped all over and it wasn't even remotely as serious: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0406180364jun18,0,7479994.story

Oh and guess who the Opponent was: Barack Obama

Not trying to drag Obama into this but making a point that Newsbusters did their research.
Don't worry, we all know how you hate to drag Obama into something he has absolutely no part in.

ForeverNight
12-19-2008, 11:48 PM
I think I understand now - when a news organisation contradicts what Fox News or some similar wrong- right-wing source claims, it's biased and left-sided and completely baseless. But if that same source states something in support of what you want it to, it's suddenly a valid source.

And if a new organization contradicts what the mainstream media says it's automatically wrong sorry Right-Wing?

Anyway, what's the problem with Garfield's statement. He gave his original source, J7 asked for confirmation, and Garfield provided further info from ABC...

Where's the problem???

The Doctor
12-19-2008, 11:50 PM
I have no problem with what he said per se so much as I have a problem with the double standards he holds on media sources - only ones that suit his purposes seem to be valid, and anything else is tainted with left-wing radicalism. It's getting old, fast.

Jae Onasi
12-20-2008, 11:06 PM
I found an article of interest that pretty much shows that there appears to be a pattern of this behavior all the way back to the late 1980s.

Newsbusters: ABC News Sat on Blago Bookie Mob Boss Charge for years. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/12/18/abc-news-sat-blago-bookie-mob-charge-years)

This means that people knew he was corrupt, at least the media knew. This would have been out in 30 seconds after they got the story if it were a Republican (slight exageration but not by much).

Not necessarily--the Chicago Tribune held back a number of stories (per an interview with one of the Tribune reporters on WGN radio last week) because they were required to by the Feds so that the investigation wasn't compromised. It's possible ABC held back if they were also working with the Feds. Also, Hot Rod knows how to work crowds and people--he's incredibly engaging and charismatic, and if you didn't know directly that he was involved in shady stuff, you'd have a tough time believing anything nasty about him because his public persona is very charming, almost beguilingly so. I knew something odd was going on because Blagojevich as governor spent hardly any time in Springfield, and some of the news outlets were sharply critical of his actions. The fact that Medicaid payments to hospitals and providers were up to 8 months late certainly made me think something funny was going on with the books. It just never occurred to me that the governor was shaking down hospital CEOs for political donations in order to get funding.

The Tribune is not a left-wing source, by the way. It tends towards the conservative side.

Obama had ZERO interaction with the Ryan situation, other than being in an incredibly fortuitous situation when it happened. Jack Ryan was running on the Republican ticket and would have beaten Obama easily in that election--he had far better funding, name recognition, popularity. When the sex scandal broke, however, it made him a political hot potato within the Republican party so he stepped aside. The Republican party, for reasons I've never been able to fathom because it's probably one of the worst political blunders I've seen in any Senate race by a party, decided to bring in the outsider Alan Keyes to run against Obama. Keyes, with no IL experience and barely even legal residency, had pretty much no chance to beat Obama, who had the Chicago Democratic machine working for him on top of his IL Senate experience and long-term residency in the state.

GarfieldJL
12-21-2008, 10:38 PM
Jae, Chicago Tribune is not Conservative Leaning, in fact there are only a handful of media sources in the United States that aren't anywhere from far-left to left of center. Look at the schools where they teach journalism.

Also, I'm not blaming Obama for the Chicago Tribune situation, but I'm making the point that (and it also proves why the argument that Chicago Tribune is conservative is flawed), they went after stuff to attack a man's family, stuff that was in place to protect a child. Yet, something about a corruption scandal involving a politician who potentially has ties to the mob is off limits (referring to Illinois Governor). That's where your arguement falls apart.

Point is, that I trust the conservative sites because they provided sources (in the same article I used), and the sources were legit, and I also watched articles disappear from several news agencies that had been there previously during the election. That's why I'd trust Rush Limbaugh over many media outlets at this point, not that I think he's a good news source (which he isn't); it's just the mainstream media is that dishonest in my opinion.

To sum it up, the media tried to keep this story buried until he finally made threats towards a newspaper that wasn't being supportive enough, and he didn't have the charisma Obama did to get away with it. Nor was there a situation where the media had a pathological hatred of the man currently in office.

jrrtoken
12-21-2008, 10:48 PM
Jae, Chicago Tribune is not Conservative Leaning, in fact there are only a handful of media sources in the United States that aren't anywhere from far-left to left of center. Look at the schools where they teach journalism.Uh... yeah, it is. I'd know, cause I get it. Well, at least I used to. :(
Also, I'm not blaming Obama for the Chicago Tribune situation, but I'm making the point that (and it also proves why the argument that Chicago Tribune is conservative is flawed), they went after stuff to attack a man's family, stuff that was in place to protect a child. Yet, something about a corruption scandal involving a politician who potentially has ties to the mob is off limits (referring to Illinois Governor). That's where your arguement falls apart.Wait, wait, wait... so you're saying that since the Tribune supposedly went out to criticize the governor's family, it proves that the Tribune has a liberal bias, because conservative papers would never do such a thing??? :rofl:
Point is, that I trust the conservative sites because they provided sources (in the same article I used), and the sources were legit, and I also watched articles disappear from several news agencies that had been there previously during the election. That's why I'd trust Rush Limbaugh over many media outlets at this point, not that I think he's a good news source (which he isn't); it's just the mainstream media is that dishonest in my opinion.In short: Conservative > Liberal

GarfieldJL
12-21-2008, 10:58 PM
Wait, wait, wait... so you're saying that since the Tribune supposedly went out to criticize the governor's family, it proves that the Tribune has a liberal bias, because conservative papers would never do such a thing??? :rofl:

When was Obama running for Illinois Governor? We're talking about a man named Jack Ryan, not the Governor in the Tribune example.

jrrtoken
12-21-2008, 11:06 PM
When was Obama running for Illinois Governor? We're talking about a man named Jack Ryan, not the Governor in the Tribune example.Whoops. :( My point still stands, though, you're trying to plaster that conservatives would never attack someone's family, while liberals would. If you'd like to rectify or retract your statement, then that would be welcome.

GarfieldJL
12-21-2008, 11:17 PM
Whoops. :( My point still stands, though, you're trying to plaster that conservatives would never attack someone's family, while liberals would. If you'd like to rectify or retract your statement, then that would be welcome.

If they walk into the political spotlight and make pretty damaging comments in public it could be fair game (when we're talking about adults). I don't recall Republicans going after children though (with one exception), that tends to be more of a Democrat tactic. One of the reasons why the 2000 election was a battle for the lesser of two evils (cause Bush or people supporting Bush, took a swipe at McCain's adopted daughter, because she happens to be black) though I wasn't old enough to vote at the time. However, it wasn't Republicans that said the Clintons were "pimping out" their daughter. It was also the Clinton campaign that first brought up the Obama is a muslim thing, not Republicans.

Adavardes
12-21-2008, 11:25 PM
I don't recall Republicans going after children though (with one exception), that tends to be more of a Democrat tactic.

Nah, they never go after children, Republicans prefer to stick to lies about opposing party candidates to try and paint them as terrorists that hate America (because loving America = infallible philosophy, apparently).

Politics are always dirty, regardless of party affiliation, and trying to pin one political party to the corruption is possibly the silliest thing I've ever heard.

jrrtoken
12-21-2008, 11:26 PM
:words:So, basically, Republicans and conservatives are all around better people when it comes to politics and knowing when negative campaigning goes too far? I don't have to look too far back, let's say the 2008 Presidential Election, to prove the opposite. But hey, why go into that debacle again?

GarfieldJL
12-21-2008, 11:32 PM
So, basically, Republicans and conservatives are all around better people when it comes to politics and knowing when negative campaigning goes too far? I don't have to look too far back, let's say the 2008 Presidential Election, to prove the opposite. But hey, why go into that debacle again?

No, I'm saying that Republicans had a valid point concerning Obama's associations. And, considering the media kept this story concerning the governor buried until they finally didn't have a choice because the guy tried to sell a Senate seat and was arrested by the FBI. If this had been a Republican Governor from Arizona, the media would have been all over it in a heartbeat.

I've already proven that the media knew this Governor was corrupt for years and they kept this information buried.

Jae Onasi
12-23-2008, 03:05 AM
No, I'm saying that Republicans had a valid point concerning Obama's associations. And, considering the media kept this story concerning the governor buried until they finally didn't have a choice because the guy tried to sell a Senate seat and was arrested by the FBI. If this had been a Republican Governor from Arizona, the media would have been all over it in a heartbeat.

I've already proven that the media knew this Governor was corrupt for years and they kept this information buried.

Let me repeat a point I stated earlier since it's getting buried in the liberal vs. conservative "No they didn't!" "Yes they did!" back-and-forth that sounds remarkably like how my children sound when they have their little sibling spats.

The Feds requested (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-tribune-cooperatdec10,0,2227525.story) the Tribune not to publish any stories that could compromise the investigation. The Chicago Tribune was part of the investigation, so they had little choice if they truly wanted to see justice done (if you're a rose-colored glasses type)/the governor's head figuratively on a pike (if you're a cynic). Since the man in charge of the Blagojevich investigation, US Atty Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed by Bush, I doubt Fitzgerald intentionally suppressed information in October and November in order to give Obama a win. I do think Fitzgerald wanted to be very careful to get all his ducks in a row legally so that he'd have an air-tight case.
Copy of the Criminal complaint (http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/43789434.pdf).

The IL lawmakers have started an impeachment panel (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blago-impeachdec17,0,6789465.story), and Hot Rod issued a statement saying "I will be vindicated." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-main-20dec20,0,2411246.story) I'm not sure how he's going to be vindicated with overwhelming evidence stacked against him, but he's refusing to resign.

I have not looked into the mob ties, but come on, it's Chicago, home of Al Capone. Everyone in Chicago has some kind of ties to the mob if you look deep enough. That doesn't make it right, but it's as common as paczki and pierogi on Pulaski Day.

Achilles
12-23-2008, 03:14 AM
The Feds told the Tribune not to publish any stories that could compromise the investigation.. Since the Chicago Tribune was part of the investigation, they had no choice. When a US Attorney says 'don't publish x', you don't publish it until they say you can.Please correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this impinge on our first amendment free press rights? AFAIK, the gov't frequently approaches media sources and asks them not to publish a story. And, again AFAIK, most media outlets will weigh the request against the perceived public good and make a decision accordingly.

There might be something I'm missing here, but on the surface this doesn't quite jive for me. Thanks in advance for any clarification you (or anyone else) can provide.

Jae Onasi
12-23-2008, 03:48 AM
Yeah, I realized that after I posted it and re-read one of the Tribune articles, so I edited the post. I had more information to add anyway. :)

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 02:35 PM
Yeah, I realized that after I posted it and re-read one of the Tribune articles, so I edited the post. I had more information to add anyway. :)

And what about ABC, whom chose not to report on the corruption when it could have kept the man from being re-elected?

Jae Onasi
12-23-2008, 04:38 PM
And what about ABC, whom chose not to report on the corruption when it could have kept the man from being re-elected?

I don't know enough about it to make a comment at this point. Accusing a sitting governor of crimes is pretty serious, and I think any news organization would take extraordinary care to make sure they had correct information before breaking a story of that magnitude.

The issue isn't 'is Blagojevich corrupt' because it's been hinted at for years. The problem is coming up with the direct proof. There are so many layers of corruption in this administration it's not funny, and a lot of people were covering for each other. Getting to the truth has required wiretaps and recording conversations to get to where we're at now. If ABC didn't have solid enough proof to go with the story, I can see them holding it. No one wants to be sued for libel by the State of IL, after all. Again, that's conjecture about ABC because I know virtually nothing about it.

Jae Onasi
01-11-2009, 02:08 AM
Hot Rod has been impeached. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-blagojevich-impeached-090109-ht,0,802731.story). Vote was 114-1 for impeachment. It's pretty bad when his own political party nearly completely abandons him. The IL Senate will meet soon to start the trial, unless Blagojevich decides to resign. I'm not holding my breath on a resignation.

Darth Avlectus
01-14-2009, 06:59 AM
Blago...sacrifical lamb. Criticizing and lambasting the party he served. Not a shining beacon, himself. Happens more often for those than the rest who just go with the flow. As J7 more or less said somewhere else (unless I'm interpreting it wrong)...they're all corrupt and putting on pretty faces...who gets busted is largely a matter of who gets caught in the act. Everyone knows things all the time.

Even if J7 was saying something else with the hand in cookie jar thing, I interject my 2 cents. Blago got caught. Everyone else goes about their business. I guess if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying, and it's only stealing if you're caught. Blago was caught. If that were to yield, say, 15 years for imagination sake, I'd estimate he'd get 10. Probably at one of those hotel jails, too. Whatever.

As a general statement, you are who you associate with. Steering this away from the president elect: Blago being rooted out as a cavity, has had his past connections, so let us see to whom. To whom as best we can for as long as we can since it'll all be rubbed out soon enough with cover and obscurity.

Jae Onasi
01-14-2009, 09:39 AM
I disagree that Blago was a sacrificial lamb--he chose on his own to try to sell the Senate seat while knowing his phone was likely bugged. He's not falling on his sword for someone else, he's managed to gut himself quite effectively by being unbelievably stupid.

Web Rider
01-14-2009, 02:23 PM
Blago...sacrifical lamb.
No, Blago was an idiot. It's one thing to do underhanded dealings, and yes, 9/10 politicians probably do, it's another thing to do underhanded dealings while you're being watched by the Feds. Many other political figures have made the same mistake, so Blago is hardly unique, but most of them still TRIED to keep it on the low, but not Blago.

As a general statement, you are who you associate with. Steering this away from the president elect: Blago being rooted out as a cavity, has had his past connections, so let us see to whom. To whom as best we can for as long as we can since it'll all be rubbed out soon enough with cover and obscurity.
Considering that Obama DIDNT associate with this guy, and was merely the senator from the same state, I guess that means that Obama ISNT who people are trying to paint him as because he DIDNT associate with this guy.

Jae Onasi
01-27-2009, 02:24 AM
Well, as an update on all this:
Blago's lawyer quit the other day, stating that while he could represent someone who disagreed with his recommendations, he couldn't represent someone who refused to even listen to his recommendations in the first place. Now, plenty gets said in high-profile cases like this, but the lawyer quitting right before an impeachment trial starts is usually a bad sign.

Blago's impeachment trial started today. Where was Rod? Not in Springfield, IL at the proceedings. Nope. He was making the rounds on talk shows. This included The View, where, get this, one of the ladies asked him if he'd do his Nixon impersonation and say "I am not a crook!" I nearly burst out laughing.

Rod talked about all the people he'd call to the stand to testify for him and dropped so many names the floor was littered with people. He pointedly named Jesse Jackson Jr., Rahm Emmanuel, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, (the latter two to testify in his favor, just to be clear), and assorted other political notables.

EnderWiggin
01-27-2009, 07:05 AM
Blago's impeachment trial started today. Where was Rod? Not in Springfield, IL at the proceedings. Nope. He was making the rounds on talk shows. This included The View, where, get this, one of the ladies asked him if he'd do his Nixon impersonation and say "I am not a crook!" I nearly burst out laughing.


Of course, going to the proceeding wouldn't do him much good, since he's not really being impeached due to the corruption (as it's not even an allegation yet, no indictment) and under IL law he's not allowed to call witnesses in his defense.

Basically, he's gone no matter what, so why even bother? Why not focus on surviving the criminal charges he knows are coming, rather than closing the barn door now that the cow has gone and become steak?

_EW_

Jae Onasi
01-28-2009, 12:41 PM
Of course, going to the proceeding wouldn't do him much good, since he's not really being impeached due to the corruption (as it's not even an allegation yet, no indictment) and under IL law he's not allowed to call witnesses in his defense. This is actually not correct. The Tribune issued Fact Check (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-factcheck-blagoje,0,7497735.story) because what Blagojevich is saying is inaccurate. He could have called witnesses and submitted evidence to defend himself, but he didn't get any information in by the deadline. He has chosen to boycott the trial instead of doing what he could to defend himself.

It also is about corruption, and lobbyists and other agencies needing to pay to Rod's re-election campaign in order to get something out of him--legislation, face time for requests, etc. These are the transcripts released yesterday (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/InterceptedCommunications.asp) of intercepted phone calls between Rod and lobbyists.

Basically, he's gone no matter what, so why even bother? Why not focus on surviving the criminal charges he knows are coming, rather than closing the barn door now that the cow has gone and become steak?
_EW_
I don't know why he's doing this--he's going to get called on this by someone at some point--
Blago: I wasn't allowed to bring any witnesses to the impeachment.
Reporter: Sir, you were given the opportunity to bring witnesses, but you missed the deadline. Why are you saying you aren't allowed to bring witnesses when all you had to do was submit a list by the deadline?

His impeachment is pretty much a done deal. The Republicans will vote for impeachment, and few if any Democrats will vote against impeachment knowing what's on those tapes.

I don't understand this whirlwind national media tour. First, it's not going to make any difference to the IL gov't. Second, it's certainly not going to make any difference to Peter Fitzgerald and the other Feds when they prosecute the case. Third, the more Rod opens his mouth, the more likely it is he's going to slip up and say something incriminating--which is why his lawyer decided to drop him like a hot potato. Declaring he's innocent on national TV when he knows what's on the tapes is going to put him in jail makes no sense to me.

EnderWiggin
01-28-2009, 03:35 PM
I'm not really defending him... I think he's just trying last-ditch things to keep him out of jail.

Not that I think it will work, though.

_EW_

Jae Onasi
02-01-2009, 02:05 AM
Blagojevich was impeached on Thursday by unanimous vote of 59-0 in the IL state senate. He was also unanimously barred from ever holding public office in IL again. Pat Quinn is now the new Governor of IL. I don't envy him at all--he's coming into a huge political mess and a 5 billion dollar state deficit.

@EW--I'm wondering if he just really believes all his own hype. I was about to say that was disturbing, but the entire situation is disturbing.