Not defending Blagojevich, but....

[HardWorkingDem]

after hearing this guy on the Rachel Maddow show and a reporter from the Tribune on Tweety's show, I'm beginning to think a fair hearing is in order.

I'm from Illinois and there are a few things those of us in Illinois know about Blagojevich and other Illinois Dems that out of state people may not realize. For one, Illinois congressional dems HATE Blagojevich for a variety of reasons. For one thing, they are madder than hell at him because a couple of years ago he forced them back into session against their will. On top of that, downstate Illnoisians feel snubbed by the Gov because he won't stay in the Gov's mansion in Springfield.

There is a lot of internal Dem politics going on here that fall under the radar a bit to the national audience.

And the thing that really got me thinking about a fair hearing was when a reporter from the Tribune (I think that's his paper) was on Tweety's show and reminded the viewers that this Blago junk goes on every day by almost every politician and brought up what Tom DeLay did back in 94 with K-Street. And THAT was an even more blatant shakedown than anything Blago has appeared to have done.


So far, whether people want to believe it or not, it seems to be Blago is getting nailed because he was dumb enough to get caught on tape, fight with his own party and have a terrible, terrible taste in hairdos and sweatsuits.

[tabatha]

1. He was given the chance to provide witnesses, but he declined.

[itsrobert]

37. His list of witnesses were refjected

because Fitzgerald did not want them damaging his case.

[elleng]

2. Its perfectly fine to 'defend' Blago;

everyone is entitled to a defense. A fair hearing is certainly in order, and very difficult in the circumstances.

[RFKJrNews]

11. Seconded. Since when do we convict anyone without due process?

no matter how bad their hairdo is, or how abrasive their personality might be? Irritating people deserve a fair trial too.

All I know is this. Blago may have contemplated/suggested selling a senate seat but did not actually complete the transaction. (Or at least, that has not been proven.) Suggesting such a thing is not illegal. Completing the transaction is.

On the other hand, Gov. Paterson in NY seems to have done the same thing and engaged in a pay-for-play appointment with Gillibrand.
No one is impeaching his sorry, lying butt, nor is anyone even investigating this thing.

Based on the info available to us now, if I had to say who is worse, Blago or Paterson, I'd opine that what Paterson did is much worse. He completed the transaction and made the appointment.

More info on that here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4925925&mesg_id=4925925

[On the Road]

14. That Happens to be Blago's Point

Due process is not followed during and impeachment, at least not the type in the criminal court system. There is no particular standard of evidence. Blago can be removed from office simply because state senators want him removed.

That being the case, Blago's actions were illegal. Soliciting a bribe is still a crime even if the bribe isn't made.

[elleng]

16. Problem for Blago is the impeachment thing

and the relationship between the evidence he'd like to use in his defense there AND the evidence he and the prosecution want to have available in the trial (up-coming or not.) Its really a legal quandary, and he's caught.

[Raskolnik]

25. You are mistaken.

Suggesting such a thing is not illegal. Completing the transaction is.

When you are charged with conspiracy, as Blago is (in the Federal complaint), "completion" of the act is not necessary.

For example, if I ask someone to kill my wife for $100,000, that is a crime whether or not I actually give the person $100,000 or whether he kills my wife.

[The Wielding Truth]

3. "he was dumb enough to get caught on tape" Evidence he broke the

law. Case over. If he refuses to be part of the impeachment, and does not defend himself, the evidence will decide the case.

[HardWorkingDem]

4. Go over to TalkingPointsMemo...and crazy like a fox...

Josh Marshall makes a good point from Maddow's interview. On top of that, this guy might just be crazy like a fox in all these interviews.

One last thing to ponder, he is so hated by his fellow democrats in Congress that he might have felt he could not get a fair impeachment trial and the result inevitable.

[tekisui]

7. Tough shit for him.

If he thought he couldn't get a fair Impeachment trial, then he shouldn't have given them the opening for it.

[terisan]

10. He's the scapegoat for Illinois pols-want him out of Dodge before the spotlight shines on them

[Tangerine LaBamba]

18. Bingo

That's exactly it, and a lot of the big money that's been behind Obama since his first run for State office do NOT want Blago spilling the beans or ruining the game.

I love Obama, love that he's our President, but I never forget that he's the Chicago Democratic Establishment's golden child, and I know some of the people who've backed and groomed him all the way.

Blago is no fool. I don't think he's nuts, either. I think he's outfoxing the hunters, playing their own game.

Since I have no dog in this race, I'm enjoying the show.

[gratuitous]

12. Well, we've certainly read the excerpts over and over

I'm not particularly enamored of Mr. Blagojevich, and his demeanor the last couple of days hasn't budged me a bit on that. But I haven't heard the actual tapes, just read the excerpts that the prosecutor made sure everyone got a chance to see. And I'm not sure I see an overt act. Sure, it's illegal to sell a Senate seat, but I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that Blagojevich actually tried to sell Obama's former Senate seat. He may have been spitballing with his staff or cronies about wanting to swap consideration for the appointment, but without an overt act (that is, an offer), I'm not sure just talking about it is a crime.

That being said, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It's strictly political, and is only a step in the direction of removing someone from office. A public official who is impeached and removed from office doesn't have to go to jail, doesn't have to pay a fine, and isn't subject - speaking only of the removal proceeding - to any criminal sanction. They're just no longer in office. I don’t have any love for Blagojevich, but I sincerely hope that the Illinois legislature doesn’t make a habit of removing people from office for anything other than committing (rather than just talking about) high crimes and misdemeanors, or that some more actual evidence comes out. Removing Blagojevich solely on the basis of “we don’t like this guy” is more the prerogative of the voters.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. No, you're wrong

Talk is cheap. All that the tapes - the ones released so far - show is that he talked a good game.

Anyone can talk. You do not get punished for chattering.

What I want to see, and which hasn't been made public, is proof that he acted on that talk, that he committed criminal acts.

The Chicago Tribune/Children's Hospital stuff may be provable, but, for now, it's questionable.

[The Wielding Truth]

15. The quote was "get caught". He has the right to defend himself,

but if he just ignores the evidence,then he isn't defending himself. Shouldn't he be there with his lawyers and make sure that all the evidence and proof against him is produced? Shouldn't he be making arguments to the IL. skewer masters?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. No

Those aren't the rules in Illinois of how an impeachment is conducted. They're not criminal proceedings - it's an administrative proceeding.

[The Wielding Truth]

19. You mean he has no way to make a defense, or confront the

evidence? If that's true then laws must be changed, his fate is up to IL State reps., and unless there is a way he came appeal the verdict, he is toast.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

20. You got that right

He's toast.

[WillowTree]

36. He toasted himself.

[davsand]

21. He has EVERY ability to make a defense.

As far as that goes, the rules in this impeachment actually allow for here say to be entered into the record. If Blag had WANTED to do it he could very easily have entered in tapes of TV statements made TO THE PRESS by guys like Emmanuel and Reid. Their presence to testify is not required for it to be considered acceptable/allowable.

As for modifying the Illinois Constitution, I doubt seriously that you'd find anybody in this state that would be willing to MAKE that change right now--in time to save Blag. Just ain't happening.



The biggest problem Blag faces is that he knows he's screwed here in Illinois--he's out of a job. He's playing now to the potential jury pool for the trial on the Federal stuff.



Laura

[HardWorkingDem]

22. I wonder if you are really on to the main Blago strategy...

and wonder if right now his main goal is to stay out of jail, because anyone from Illinois or with a smidgen of information about Illinois politics most likely realizes Blago was done some time ago and the Illinois Dems were just waiting for some reason to pull the impeachment trigger. Remember, a year or two ago Madigan, a democrat, brought up the topic of impeachment proceedings, but there just wasn't enough to get other members to jump on board.

[The Wielding Truth]

35. Yep that's what I thought. He is hot water and refusing to pull himself out

with a defense. He is just yelling-out to outside the pot.He seems bold, but not so smart.

[tekisui]

5. Impeachment is not a criminal trial, it is political, and legal.

If the Illinois House and Senate Impeach and vote to remove him from office, that is their business. He had the opportunity to attend and defend himself against each charge, yet he chose to distract the media with his pity circus.

The man is clearly unfit to be governor, just judging by his comments on his pity-me tour. He has go to go.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. I agree with you. Blagojevich is no different than any other pol in government.

Even Harry Reid called his office a few times to push for Tammy Duckworth and Madigan. This is done all the time. They're all on tape too, only, it's not being publicized, and what's publicized is what the public only hears, sees, absorbs.

There is truth in what he said that they've been after him for four years now. Politics is a dirty business and it's not unheard of pay to play. In fact, I'm pretty sure ALL of our pols are guilty of the same or worse.

At least Tweety was fair to point out this is done by all pols with Tom Delay being the worst, but the corporate media love them some Democratic scandal and completely ignore the repubs until they are ab-so-lute-ly forced to do address them.

I recall how they all went after a non-story about CA representative Gary Condit with regards to Chandra Levy which turned up nothing. His only scandal was having an affair with her, but they made it out to be that she vanished under nefarious circumstances and it was as if he had something to do with it. He didn't.

At the very same time, they completely ignored Joe Scarborough and the dead intern in his office. All this went hush-hush and THERE was a huge story since Joey was part of the Florida legislature that wanted to hand Bush the electoral votes based on Kathleen Harris' certification even though the recount was still underway. I remember Joe clearly standing up looking annoyed at the minority leader's plea to please wait for all votes to be counted.

I would think since Joe wasn't only rumored to have been pretty close with that secretary (affair), but that she was actually found DEAD in his office would be a HUGE story! But nope. Not a peep in our "liberal media".

I say give Blagojevich his day and allow him to call up all witnesses and wiretaps to defend himself during his impeachment otherwise it's nothing more than another witch hunt he can't win fairly.

[terisan]

8. Actually Fitzgerald asked legislature to not subpoena certain witnesses-Rahm, Jarrett, and others.

these witnesses can't be compelled to testify for Blagojevich and would be highly unlikely to stick their necks out and show up to testify in opposition to Fitzgerald's wishes, and the legislature would be unlikely to hear them if they did

[verges]

9. And he will get a fair hearing.

In a court of law. He will no longer be Governor because he was unable to effectively carry out the job. That's what the impeachment will determine. I watched Rachel last night too. I saw a scumbag defending himself by: 1) claiming he broke the law to do good (kinda like Bush) 2) It's okay because other politicians do it. Neither of these wash.

[Hannah Bell]

23. Another poster noted B. threatened to cut off state business with Bank of America

during the Republic Doors sit-in.

That seems one likely reason he was made an example of.

I'm coming to like the guy.

[Raskolnik]

27. Then you really, really don't know much about him.

I'm coming to like the guy.

Blago is a petty sociopath who has never done a thing in public office that wasn't first and foremost about helping himself.

His Bank of America press conference was a cheap political stunt meant to curry public favor, pulled only when he knew his time was short.

Blago is nearly the platonic ideal of a dickhead.

[Hannah Bell]

31. hey, pelosi makes bucks off war contracts & rolls over for the pubs.

i'll take the dickhead that issues threats to banks, even if it is a stunt.

there's a reason b.'s being taken down; i don't know what it is, but i doubt it's because he's exceptionally corrupt.

[Raskolnik]

32. Yes, there is a reason Blago is being "taken down"

He's being "taken down" because he is a stunningly corrupt, stunningly arrogant politician who is finally being hoisted by his own petard.

[Hannah Bell]

33. so say you. in my experience, the corrupt go on forever, so long as they don't

step on some other corruption's toes.

[Raskolnik]

34. That is sophistry.

The fact that there are corrupt government officials in the past, and will be corrupt government officials in the future, does not make any successful prosecution of corruption merely a result of "stepping on other corruption's toes."

If you have evidence that Fitzgerald was instructed to investigate and/or prosecute based on political reasons, please present it.

[Johonny]

24. IDK

I saw a guy that lied himself into a corner several times with Rachel. I doubt he will not get convicted on all the charges against him. But the man came off as incredibly guilty in that interview.

[Upton]

26. What happened to the presumption of innocence in this case?

I find it somewhat troubling that the majority of my fellow Democrats seem to think it doesn't apply to Blago.

[Raskolnik]

28. This is a political process, not a criminal trial.

He should be presumed innocent by the Judge and jury hearing his case, but that does not require the rest of us to wear blinders.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. Bank of America told Bush to arrest him because of their labor woes.

[Raskolnik]

30. You aren't serious. n/t