[Chongo]

Fallout from Tony Rezko? Interesting how the CBS 2 report does not mention party affiliation. The NY Times article mentions it it in the third paragraph.

cbs2chicago.com - Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Arrested By Federal Agents

Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, were arrested today by FBI agents on federal corruption charges alleging that they and others are engaging in ongoing criminal activity: conspiring to obtain personal financial benefits for Blagojevich by leveraging his sole authority to appoint a United States Senator; threatening to withhold substantial state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members sharply critical of Blagojevich; and to obtain campaign contributions in exchange for official actions – both historically and now in a push before a new state ethics law takes effect January 1, 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/a...o.html?_r=1&hp

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on charges of conspiring to get financial benefits through his authority to appoint a U.S. senator to fill the vacancy left by Barack Obama's election as president.
According to a federal criminal complaint, Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper's editorial board who had been critical of him fired.
Blagojevich also was charged with using his authority as governor in an attempt to squeeze out campaign contributions, prosecutors said.

[Dork.]

There's a new twist in the Times article that I just read....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us...0Illinois.html

As Mr. Blagojevich mulled the Senate appointment, prosecutors say, he discussed gaining “a substantial salary” at a nonprofit foundation or organization connected to labor unions, placing his wife on corporate boards where she might earn as much as $150,000 a year and trying to gain promises of campaign money, or even a cabinet post or ambassadorship, for himself.
A 76-page affidavit from the United States Attorney’s office in Northern Illinois says Mr. Blagojevich was heard on wiretaps over the last month planning to “sell or trade Illinois’ United States Senate seat vacated by Pres-elect Barack Obama for financial and personal benefits for himself and his wife.”

Somehow I don't think a cabinet post is forthcoming for the (soon to be former) Governor....

Edit: the prosecutor is the same guy who went after Scooter Libby....

[CreepDogg]

Yet another sad day in Illinois government, even if it was a long time coming.

We in Illinois know that corruption transcends party lines - our last governor, a Republican, is currently in jail, and now it looks like this clown is going. Maybe someday we'll wise up and elect someone who at least acknowledges that the office is supposed to be about public service. That would be a start.

[olePigeon]

That's pretty funny, actually. He's the only honest politician I've ever heard about. His testimony was about how crazy someone would be to NOT sell your position. "This seat is f*cking gold!"

[stupendousman]

I don't understand. Chris Dodd got a cash gift from a company he regulates. I thought this sort of thing was allowed?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't understand. Chris Dodd got a cash gift from a company he regulates. I thought this sort of thing was allowed?

It's only illegal if you get caught. The entire House, Senate, administration cabinet, and presidency is about favors to companies and people that got you there.

[mduell]

Weird dynamic between Blago and Obama:

The FBI affidavit said Blagojevich had been told by an adviser "the president-elect can get Rod Blagojevich's wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the president-elect's pick to the Senate."

Told by two other advisers he has to "suck it up" for two years, the FBI says it heard Blagojevich complain he has to give this "motherf***er [the president-elect] his senator. F*** him. For nothing? F*** him."

(source)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's only illegal if you get caught.

But, he doesn't deny it. He did get caught.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

But, he doesn't deny it. He did get caught.

Yeah, which is what I find amusing. He's being honest about it. Ted Stevens tried to wiggle around it. This guy just lays it out on the floor and explains how it works, why he did it, and probably that every other person in higher government offices do the same thing.

[spacefreak]

His wife was overheard on the tapes yelling in the background. What a class act...

During the call, Rod Blagojevich's wife can be heard in the background telling Rod Blagojevich to tell Deputy Governor A "to hold up that f***ing Cubs s***. . . f*** them." ... Later, Rod Blagojevich's wife got on the phone and, during the continuing discussion of the critical Tribune editorials, stated that Tribune Owner can "just fire" the writers because Tribune Owner owns the Tribune. Rod Blagojevich's wife stated that if Tribune Owner's papers were hurting his business, Tribune Owner would do something about the editorial board.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/b...120908.article

[TheWOAT]

He was framed. Vast right-wing conspiracy.

[besson3c]

While what Dodd did was wrong, as I understand it, this is a whole other league of wrong. Installing the highest bidder into a position offering this much power is arguably an act of treason.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

While what Dodd did was wrong, as I understand it, this is a whole other league of wrong. Installing the highest bidder into a position offering this much power is arguably an act of treason.

So as long as you don't engage in treason, bribery is okay?

Just trying to understand the boundaries here.

[lexapro]

I'd like to thank the IL Gov for stepping across party lines and joining his fellow IL politicians in getting arrested.

[macforray]

Sounds like his wife is a real "class act" too. Regardless of party affiliation or level of government service, any public servant who believes that they are above the laws of this land, should get their a$$ handed to them.

Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go and do not collect $200....... Hopefully.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So as long as you don't engage in treason, bribery is okay?

Just trying to understand the boundaries here.

Did what I write infer this to you?

[Ghoser777]

About time. How could the Republican party not run a stronger candidate against this guy back in 2006? It's almost embarrassing....

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

While what Dodd did was wrong, as I understand it, this is a whole other league of wrong. Installing the highest bidder into a position offering this much power is arguably an act of treason.

Right. It was like the National League of wrong, whatever that means, or whichever one has the DH rule. Give me a freaking break.

The King is dead. Long live the King.

Best part of all of this: Axelrod is "misspoke" = "lied" about Obama's role in appointment.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ons-arise.html

This just keeps getting better. You can't roll with the pigs without getting sh*t on you.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by finboy 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ons-arise.html

This just keeps getting better. You can't roll with the pigs without getting sh*t on you.

Funniest thing in that linked article...

Originally Posted by The Article

On the Chicago TV show "Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz" on June 27, 2002, state Sen. Obama said, "Right now, my main focus is to make sure that we elect Rod Blagojevich as Governor, we..."

"You working hard for Rod?" interrupted Berkowitz.

"You betcha," said Obama.

[besson3c]

Sure there are "troubling" quotes and statements which could have either been sincere and to be taken literally, or empty banter, opportunistic platitudes, whatever... We'll never really know, and at the end of it it goes back to what I said during the whole Wright thing: the whole guilty by association thing is a pretty slippery and ultimately pointless slope.

Where is the line drawn? If Obama's hair stylist ends up being a rapist is Obama to be faulted for not vetting him? I know the comparison isn't fair, but where is the line drawn?

Lest you think that I'm being partisan, I'm sure you could find Republicans that had positive things to say about Stevens or some other Republicans that ended up in legal mess, and I wouldn't criticize them for their association either.

There will be plenty of time for Obama to make actual mistakes that cannot be attributed to anybody but him, I suggest some patience.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sure there are "troubling" quotes and statements which could have either been sincere and to be taken literally, or empty banter, opportunistic platitudes, whatever... We'll never really know, and at the end of it it goes back to what I said during the whole Wright thing: the whole guilty by association thing is a pretty slippery and ultimately pointless slope.

Where is the line drawn? If Obama's hair stylist ends up being a rapist is Obama to be faulted for not vetting him? I know the comparison isn't fair, but where is the line drawn?

Lest you think that I'm being partisan, I'm sure you could find Republicans that had positive things to say about Stevens or some other Republicans that ended up in legal mess, and I wouldn't criticize them for their association either.

There will be plenty of time for Obama to make actual mistakes that cannot be attributed to anybody but him, I suggest some patience.

Not sure if that was addressed (in part) to me - overall, I agree with you - I just thought that quote was funny.

I actually thought that article was pretty balanced about the whole thing - key points:

- Axelrod is backtracking from his statement about Blago and Obama talking in November
- There's nothing to indicate any wrongdoing on Obama's part. If anything, it's the opposite - Obama rejected Blago's 'pay to play' tactics.
- Obama once worked on Blago's campaign, and they endorsed each other.

I do think it's interesting that Axelrod is so adamantly backtracking, but I suppose if you step in ****, it's better (if you can) to wipe it off and throw it away than to stop and contemplate how it got there. Especially if you just walked through a field full of **** to get where you are.

[stupendousman]

Here's what puts Obama in a tough spot.

Before he was arrested, both Blagojevich and Obama's main man Axelrod agreed that Obama and Blagojevich where in negotiations in regards to the empty Senate seat.

One of Blagojevich's guys said that Obama would get Blagojevich's wife a cushy job in exchange for Obama's pick being named. Blagojevich said that wasn't going to be good enough.

A. Who was it that told Blagojevich that Obama would get his wife a job?

B. Is it really credible to believe that Axelrod "misspoke" in his initial claim after it's apparent it's now very important legally for Obama to have never spoke to Blagojevich? Do they really believe we were born yesterday?

C. Even if Obama balked at buying the Senate seat from Blago, the fact that he knew that Blago was selling and didn't report him would be a crime unto itself.

D. I don't trust Fitzgerald to do the right thing. He showed his lack of ethical credibility with the Scooter LIbby fishing expedition.

It just doesn't seem plausible that Obama didn't know what was going on before Gov. Blagojevich got arrested. I think that the most plausible explanation for all this is that Blagojevich was trying to sell the Senate seat and Obama wasn't going to give what Blagojevich wanted for it. That still makes Obama an accessory to the crime.

Again, I wasn't born yesterday.

But, I do understand that Democrats can illegally buy and sell access and not lose their positions or go to jail as long as their actions don't amount to "treason", and even if they did it's okay if that treasonous action was done to somehow thwart republicans (the selling of national security secrets by the Clinton's in exchange for illegal campaign donations).

Is this really the standard Democrats want to communicate? Kennedy gets the White House via fraud, but Nixon gets impeached because he didn't tell the truth about what he knew about something he had no role in after it happened...and from there history.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here's what puts Obama in a tough spot.

"Tough spot?" No, not so much. If Blagojevich is not a criminal, they can be pals and endorse each other as they see fit. If Blagojevich is a criminal, Obama can and will express his 'disappointment' and distance himself from him. Pretty simple if you ask me.

If it were to turn out that there is direct evidence that Obama was involved in some unsavory way in these specific dealings with Blagojevich, then yeah, he'd be in a tough spot. But right now there, uh, isn't.

A. Who was it that told Blagojevich that Obama would get his wife a job?

Well, according to the official charges, it was Blagojevich's own advisors conjecturing what type of 'reward' he'd have the best chance of getting. That was just one of many things talked about.

B. Is it really credible to believe that Axelrod "misspoke" in his initial claim after it's apparent it's now very important legally for Obama to have never spoke to Blagojevich? Do they really believe we were born yesterday?

It's certainly odd, but I have to say I don't really much care unless there's evidence of wrongdoing on Obama's part. Absent that, I'll chalk it up to Obama's camp distancing themselves from Blagojevich as much as possible, just as just about every Republican did with GW Bush during the election cycle.

C. Even if Obama balked at buying the Senate seat from Blago, the fact that he new that Blago was selling and didn't report him would be a crime unto itself.

...except that that's not a fact. For all we know, if they communicated about it, they discussed preferences and nothing else. Or maybe it was Obama that tipped Fitzgerald off on all this. Or maybe, as you seem so certain, they were making a deal to sell the seat to the highest bidder and split the cash.

Look, it's entirely possible that Obama was involved in some wrongdoing here. I think it's unlikely, but if he was, and it can be proven, then he'll be in a heap of trouble. However, there is ZERO evidence indicating that, which makes any discussion about his involvement nothing more than conjecture.

It just doesn't seem plausible that Obama didn't know what was going on before Gov. Blagojevich got arrested. I think that the most plausible explanation for all this is that Blagojevich was trying to sell the Senate seat and Obama wasn't going to give what Blagojevich wanted for it. That still makes Obama an accessory to the crime.

You're right. He hasn't been busy with anything else. I'm sure he's spending all his waking hours worrying about what Blagojevich is doing. What I think is most plausible is that Obama knows Illinois politics and probably figured Blagojevich would want something for his 'support'. So he probably had an advisor state his preferences and make it clear there would be no 'payback' from his camp to nip it in the bud, and that was that. He had nothing to gain from being any deeper in it than that.

In the end, neither of us really knows - it's all conjecture.

But, I do understand that Democrats can illegally buy and sell access and not lose their positions or go to jail as long as their actions don't amount to "treason", and even if they did it's okay if that treasonous action was done to somehow thwart republicans (the selling of national security secrets by the Clinton's in exchange for illegal campaign donations).

Is this really the standard Democrats want to communicate? Kennedy get's the White House via fraud, but Nixon gets impeached because he didn't tell the truth about what he knew about something he had no role in after it happened...and from there history.

I thought it was already pretty clear that corruption in Illinois politics knows no party bounds. The former governor, a Republican, is currently in jail, and there are serious discussions about Bush commuting his sentence. Now we have the next in line. If you want to make this partisan, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't do anything for your credibility.

[The Crook]

I have to remind myself who the people tying this Obama are.

And I'm glad that our media has clearly progressive people on the news now so right-wing narratives like this story (the tying of it to Obama) don't dominate as much. I'm looking at you, Keith-O and Rachel Maddow. Also the liberal blogosphere can counter-balance the MSM somewhat, unlike during the Clinton years where the press went absolutely crazy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

I have to remind myself who the people tying this Obama are.

I'll do it for you. Axelrod and Blagojevich.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

"Tough spot?" No, not so much. If Blagojevich is not a criminal, they can be pals and endorse each other as they see fit. If Blagojevich is a criminal, Obama can and will express his 'disappointment' and distance himself from him. Pretty simple if you ask me.

If Blagojevich is a criminal, and both he and Obama's right hand man have gone on record as saying that Blagojevich and Obama were discussing the Senate seat that Blagojevich was selling, it's going to be hard to "distance himself" credibly. Given the fact that Democrats are pretty much allowed to engage in patterns of corrupt behavior though, I'm not sure it matters.

If it were to turn out that there is direct evidence that Obama was involved in some unsavory way in these specific dealings with Blagojevich, then yeah, he'd be in a tough spot. But right now there, uh, isn't.

Prior to anyone knowing that Blagojevich was having his calls recorded, both he and David Axelrod say that Obama was involved in specific dealings in regards to who was going to get the senate seat Blagojevich was selling.

[Well, according to the official charges, it was Blagojevich's own advisors conjecturing what type of 'reward' he'd have the best chance of getting. That was just one of many things talked about.

Possibly. Obama's own advisors where helping him engage in felonies. I'm not so sure those are credible witnesses.

...except that that's not a fact. For all we know, if they communicated about it, they discussed preferences and nothing else. Or maybe it was Obama that tipped Fitzgerald off on all this.

Actually, I was thinking that might be the case myself. It would actually be a smart move on Obama's part. He gets Blagojevich out of the way since he wasn't going to "play ball" and someone else is installed to make the decision who'll do Obama's bidding without having to be bought off.

All I know is that Blagojevich was selling, and both he and David Axelrod say that Obama had discussed the matter with Blagojevich. I'm guessing that Obama can tell a grand jury whatever he knows, and when he knew it.

Look, it's entirely possible that Obama was involved in some wrongdoing here.

I think it's entirely possible that he wasn't. I'm just saying that whether he was or wasn't, the fact that both Blagojevich and David Axelrod went on record before the arrest as saying that Obama and Blagojevich where in discussions about the matter, and Blagojevich discusses with his people what perks Obama would be willing to give him DOES put him in a "tough spot". It's like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Sure, maybe lid had fallen off and you were just arranging the cookies, but you're going to have to have a pretty good story to convince Mom that was the case. He's going to need Bill Clinton's help likely to figure out a way to lawyer himself out of this one....or maybe not.

I keep thinking that Democrats are held to the same standards by the media and the political elite that run the country. Forgive me for momentarily expecting balance. If this were Bush, it would be front page news for months, they've have Bush and most of his advisors in front of a grand jury looking for the slightest difference in story to set up a perjury trap so they could indict SOMEONE, and all the talking heads would be asking what "Bush knew and when he knew it". We'll see if that happens with Obama.

I thought it was already pretty clear that corruption in Illinois politics knows no party bounds. The former governor, a Republican, is currently in jail, and there are serious discussions about Bush commuting his sentence. Now we have the next in line. If you want to make this partisan, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't do anything for your credibility.

Republicans getting caught, losing their position, and going to jail is the rule when they've been engaging in criminal activity. It's the exception for Democrats. Chris Dodd can get kickbacks and still go on TV like he's clean as the driven snow, telling others how they should be running things. BIll and HIllary Clinton can do the same after years of a pattern of corruption without losing any power or 'doing time'.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If Blagojevich is a criminal, and both he and Obama's right hand man have gone on record as saying that Blagojevich and Obama were discussing the Senate seat that Blagojevich was selling, it's going to be hard to "distance himself" credibly. Given the fact that Democrats are pretty much allowed to engage in patterns of corrupt behavior though, I'm not sure it matters.

They were tapping Blagojevich's phone. If Obama never discussed anything unsavory with him, then I wouldsay it would be rather easy to "distance himself" from the whole thing.

I find a simple way to reconcile what has been said: Obama likely made his preferences known, through aides, to Blagojevich's aides, but the two men may have never brought up the matter together. The "misstatement" was in implying that they talked directly when they probably talked indirectly. Whatever happened, the Feds have it on tape now, so they know what the real deal is. And I believe Fitzgerald is already on record saying that nothing in the tapes implicates Obama in any way.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If Blagojevich is a criminal, and both he and Obama's right hand man have gone on record as saying that Blagojevich and Obama were discussing the Senate seat that Blagojevich was selling, it's going to be hard to "distance himself" credibly. Given the fact that Democrats are pretty much allowed to engage in patterns of corrupt behavior though, I'm not sure it matters.

Prior to anyone knowing that Blagojevich was having his calls recorded, both he and David Axelrod say that Obama was involved in specific dealings in regards to who was going to get the senate seat Blagojevich was selling.

Exactly. Blagojevich was having all these calls recorded, and yet there has been no evidence presented of any conversations or wrongdoing on Obama's part. Hence, no 'tough spot'. Easy to distance himself.

All I know is that Blagojevich was selling, and both he and David Axelrod say that Obama had discussed the matter with Blagojevich. I'm guessing that Obama can tell a grand jury whatever he knows, and when he knew it.

Right. That's all you know. Yet you're trying to make it into more with statements like that below.

I think it's entirely possible that he wasn't. I'm just saying that whether he was or wasn't, the fact that both Blagojevich and David Axelrod went on record before the arrest as saying that Obama and Blagojevich where in discussions about the matter, and Blagojevich discusses with his people what perks Obama would be willing to give him DOES put him in a "tough spot". It's like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Sure, maybe lid had fallen off and you were just arranging the cookies, but you're going to have to have a pretty good story to convince Mom that was the case. He's going to need Bill Clinton's help likely to figure out a way to lawyer himself out of this one....or maybe not.

Except it's not like being caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Blagojevich got caught in the kitchen, with the cookie jar broken on the floor and him stuffing his face with cookies, and here you are making it about Obama. There's no evidence against Obama, so he pretty much has to say he didn't know any of this and walk away.

I keep thinking that Democrats are held to the same standards by the media and the political elite that run the country. Forgive me for momentarily expecting balance. If this were Bush, it would be front page news for months, they've have Bush and most of his advisors in front of a grand jury looking for the slightest difference in story to set up a perjury trap so they could indict SOMEONE, and all the talking heads would be asking what "Bush knew and when he knew it". We'll see if that happens with Obama.

Republicans getting caught, losing their position, and going to jail is the rule when they've been engaging in criminal activity. It's the exception for Democrats. Chris Dodd can get kickbacks and still go on TV like he's clean as the driven snow, telling others how they should be running things. BIll and HIllary Clinton can do the same after years of a pattern of corruption without losing any power or 'doing time'.

Right. Clinton gets impeached for getting a blowjob in the oval office, and it's only Republicans who are questioned and persecuted in office. Whatever. The sooner you learn there are (relatively) clean and dirty politicians on both sides of the aisle, the sooner you'll sound more credible.

Illinois governors who have done jail time:

Otto Kerner (D)
Dan Walker (D)
George Ryan (R)
soon-to-be: Rod Blagojevich (D)

Hm.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

They were tapping Blagojevich's phone. If Obama never discussed anything unsavory with him, then I wouldsay it would be rather easy to "distance himself" from the whole thing.

A. Who's to say that Obama did not talk to Blagojevich personally? Who's to say that he didn't talk to Blagojevich on some phone not being tapped.

B. Both Blagojevich and Axelrod went on record as stating that Obama was in discussions about who would replace Obama. When did those conversations take place.

I find a simple way to reconcile what has been said: Obama likely made his preferences known, through aides, to Blagojevich's aides, but the two men may have never brought up the matter together.

So it was his aides who said that Obama would get Blagojevich's wife a cushy job? When the aides where notified that Blagojevich wanted $$$ for the spot, which aides either informed Obama or the FBI?

The "misstatement" was in implying that they talked directly when they probably talked indirectly. Whatever happened, the Feds have it on tape now, so they know what the real deal is. And I believe Fitzgerald is already on record saying that nothing in the tapes implicates Obama in any way.

Blagojevich's aides say that Obama would get his wife a cushy job. Fitzgerald is a partisan headhunter who isn't likely to find anything anywhere that implicates Obama. He comes from the "Janet Reno" school of federal investigation.

[besson3c]

Maybe Dork. is actually Janet Reno?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Except it's not like being caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Blagojevich got caught in the kitchen, with the cookie jar broken on the floor and him stuffing his face with cookies, and here you are making it about Obama. There's no evidence against Obama, so he pretty much has to say he didn't know any of this and walk away

Obama's right hand man says that Obama and Blagojevich discussed who was going to get the pick.

Blagojevich said that he was in communication with Obama (or at least his staff) about the matter.

Blagojevich's aides say that Obama would get Blagojevich's wife a cushy job in exchange for Obama picking his replacement. Blagojevich said that wasn't good enough.

That's evidence that Obama and/or his staff knew what Blagojevich was up to at the very least. It doesn't prove it, but it's evidence. I'm guessing Obama and Axelrod will have to testify about what they knew, and when they knew it.

Right. Clinton gets impeached for getting a blowjob in the oval office, and it's only Republicans who are questioned and persecuted in office.

Right there we have an example of why it is that Democrats are allowed to get away with murder - a complete lack of shame. Lying in court and pressuring others to do the same is "getting a blow job". Thanks for the laugh.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Fallout from Tony Rezco? Interesting how the CBS 2 report does not mention party affiliation. The NY Times article mentions it it in the third paragraph.

cbs2chicago.com - Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Arrested By Federal Agents


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/a...o.html?_r=1&hp

If he was a Republican, it would have been the first word in the title on page 1.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama's right hand man says that Obama and Blagojevich discussed who was going to get the pick.

Blagojevich said that he was in communication with Obama (or at least his staff) about the matter.

About who may be chosen for the seat. Not about selling it.

Blagojevich's aides say that Obama would get Blagojevich's wife a cushy job in exchange for Obama picking his replacement. Blagojevich said that wasn't good enough.

What does this have to do with Obama? This was Blagojevich's aides conjecturing about what they might be able to get for Blagojevich.

That's evidence that Obama and/or his staff knew what Blagojevich was up to at the very least. It doesn't prove it, but it's evidence. I'm guessing Obama and Axelrod will have to testify about what they knew, and when they knew it.

No, it's really not. I'm sure Obama knows Blagojevich is slimy - everyone in Illinois has known that for a while, and there are many - Democrats and Republicans - who do not cozy up to him - Obama, Madigan, Emil Jones, etc. Obama is smart enough to know to stay away from Blagojevich as much as possible, and I think the most likely scenario is there was some indirect communication about a preference, but no other tit-for-tat offers, and nothing to indicate Obama knew any specifics about what Blagojevich was doing.

Right there we have an example of why it is that Democrats are allowed to get away with murder - a complete lack of shame. Lying in court and pressuring others to do the same is "getting a blow job". Thanks for the laugh.

And he was impeached and censured - what's your point? Really, insisting on some nonexistent double standard and playing the victim just makes you look silly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Obama's right hand man says that Obama and Blagojevich discussed who was going to get the pick.

Blagojevich said that he was in communication with Obama (or at least his staff) about the matter.

Blagojevich's aides say that Obama would get Blagojevich's wife a cushy job in exchange for Obama picking his replacement. Blagojevich said that wasn't good enough.

That's evidence that Obama and/or his staff knew what Blagojevich was up to at the very least. It doesn't prove it, but it's evidence. I'm guessing Obama and Axelrod will have to testify about what they knew, and when they knew it.



Right there we have an example of why it is that Democrats are allowed to get away with murder - a complete lack of shame. Lying in court and pressuring others to do the same is "getting a blow job". Thanks for the laugh.

You might be right, you might be wrong. Michael Jackson may have been innocent. O.J. may have been innocent. one of those theories as to who killed JFK might be right. It's all pretty much up to our gut feelings and trust in our reading sources, and I think most of us could have predicted yours before you even posted. Just sayin'... You're welcome to share with us your theories, but I don't think that asserting that you have a monopoly on the truth will get you very far.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Fitzgerald is a partisan headhunter who isn't likely to find anything anywhere that implicates Obama. He comes from the "Janet Reno" school of federal investigation.

You do know that Blagojevich is a Democrat, right? Here he is prosecuting a Democrat, and you claim he's protecting another Democrat because he's partisan. Classic.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

You do know that Blagojevich is a Democrat, right? Here he is prosecuting a Democrat, and you claim he's protecting another Democrat because he's partisan. Classic.

Blagojevich is a Democrat who is standing in the way of the President Elect's choice of his replacement.

I've pretty much figured it all out after hearing that despite there were talks in regards to "Candidate #5" (Jesse Jackson), Jackson himself isn't being investigated and despite a couple of well informed sources claiming Obama was discussing this stuff with Blagojevich as well, that he's not going to be investigated either. Having Fitzgerald herald this "investigation" only further serves to add the final actor to this show trial. It's pretty clear that Blagojevich will pay for not "playing ball" with Obama and he and his people will be the only people to take the fall because they are the only people that those in positions of higher power want out of the way.

Sad.

[besson3c]

That is your gut feeling, stupendousman. Just want to make that clear. I'm not disputing its accuracy, simply that you "figured it all out".

[stupendousman]

The more you look at this the more clear that this whole thing stinks becomes apparent:

1. Why didn't they wait until Blagojevich ACTUALLY did try to sell the office? If he was just talking about it with his aides, and didn't actually make an offer to someone that's pretty flimsy evidence and would seem to be a rookie move by a prosecutor looking to actually stop corruption. If someone hears me saying that my boss pisses me off and I'd really like to have someone off him, am I really guilty of a crime?

2. They put Fitzgerald in charge.

3. Fitzgerald makes it quite evident that he's not looking at anyone but Blagojevich and his aides for criminal charges.

4. The only reason not to wait until Blagojevich actually made an offer and it got accepted is that they do not want any other Illinois Democrats to get caught up in the sting. If it had went any further, there would likely be indictments of one or more prominent Chicago Democrats. Possibly even a President elect. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that the only people other than Blagojevich and his top aides who knew the seat was for sale where the feds. Pull my other leg.

I'm pretty sure what happened hear is that Rahm Emanuel got pissed that Blagojevich wouldn't do his bidding, and sent the Feds after him. Just a gut feeling, but I don't think it lacks credibility given the circumstances.

[CreepDogg]

You're assuming Obama had some strong reason to prefer a particular candidate and a strong desire to be involved in the selection process. Could be, but there's no really good reason. It was pretty clear a Democrat was going to be picked - I think Obama would have rather lived with whatever Blagojevich did than get in the cesspool with him.

Fitzgerald went after Blagojevich BEFORE the selection so as not to make this into a bigger mess. It would be harder to remove the Senator after he/she was picked (even if they were involved in criminal activity, there would be trials, etc.), so better to make sure the pick that happens is credible.

Fitzgerald isn't looking at anyone but Blagojevich and his aides because, guess what, THAT'S WHO HE HAS EVIDENCE ON! It's really easy for you to launch accusations at Obama from the cheap seats; it would be a little tougher for Fitzgerald to do it without credible evidence. Sorry, try again.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

1. Why didn't they wait until Blagojevich ACTUALLY did try to sell the office? If he was just talking about it with his aides, and didn't actually make an offer to someone that's pretty flimsy evidence and would seem to be a rookie move by a prosecutor looking to actually stop corruption. If someone hears me saying that my boss pisses me off and I'd really like to have someone off him, am I really guilty of a crime?

I thought there was an offer made, something about a "candidate 5" bidding $500k or something....

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I thought there was an offer made, something about a "candidate 5" bidding $500k or something....

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conduc...6431739&page=1

Jackson said, "I don't know" when asked whether he was Candidate No. 5, but said he was told "I am not a target of this investigation."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

You're assuming Obama had some strong reason to prefer a particular candidate and a strong desire to be involved in the selection process. Could be, but there's no really good reason.

THAT is funny. There's really is no good reason for Obama to want the power to pick the person who replaces him? You don't understand why someone would want to be able to simply appoint someone to the Senate when people spend MILLIONS to convince people to vote for them and often time end up with nothing but empty pockets? Blago will probably go to jail because of his desire to wield that power without discretion. Sounds like a pretty desirable thing to me.

[quote[Fitzgerald went after Blagojevich BEFORE the selection so as not to make this into a bigger mess. It would be harder to remove the Senator after he/she was picked (even if they were involved in criminal activity, there would be trials, etc.), so better to make sure the pick that happens is credible.[/quote]

All Fitzgerald needed was evidence that an offer was made by Blago and accepted by a third party or even that a third party entertained the idea and didn't inform authorities. It didn't require him to actually announce his pick.

Fitzgerald isn't looking at anyone but Blagojevich and his aides because, guess what, THAT'S WHO HE HAS EVIDENCE ON!

Evidence on what? That they talked about how much money the seat could be worth? Without evidence that offers were actually made, it's pretty much evidence of nothing. Others are going to have to be brought into this thing if it's going to stick. If Fitzgerald doesn't have that, it will be pretty clear this was a set-up from the get-go so that the Governor won't be able to nominate his own guy. One or more people had to be told of an offer to sell. Those people are accessories. WIthout that, you have no crime. Just talking sh#t about what you'd like to do isn't against the law.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

THAT is funny. There's really is no good reason for Obama to want the power to pick the person who replaces him? You don't understand why someone would want to be able to simply appoint someone to the Senate when people spend MILLIONS to convince people to vote for them and often time end up with nothing but empty pockets? Blago will probably go to jail because of his desire to wield that power without discretion. Sounds like a pretty desirable thing to me.

Desirable enough to take the risk to 'steal' it from the governor? Again, possible, but not rational. It's pretty clear that the pick was Blagojevich's, not Obama's. So Obama would have to take the risk of committing a crime to make the pick his. So he would have assessed whether what he had to gain was worth that risk. It's possible, but my gut says no.

There's no documented rational reason why Obama would assume that risk. Is it possible there's an undocumented one? Sure. But there's no evidence.

All Fitzgerald needed was evidence that an offer was made by Blago and accepted by a third party or even that a third party entertained the idea and didn't inform authorities. It didn't require him to actually announce his pick.

How do you know that Fitzgerald could guarantee that sequence of events?

Evidence on what? That they talked about how much money the seat could be worth? Without evidence that offers were actually made, it's pretty much evidence of nothing. Others are going to have to be brought into this thing if it's going to stick. If Fitzgerald doesn't have that, it will be pretty clear this was a set-up from the get-go so that the Governor won't be able to nominate his own guy. One or more people had to be told of an offer to sell. Those people are accessories. WIthout that, you have no crime. Just talking sh#t about what you'd like to do isn't against the law.

Read the charges. Blagojevich instructed his advisers to look, essentially, at what kind of price he could get for the selection, and was caught in conversations about the planning and the results of those inquiries. I'm not a lawyer, but Fitzgerald is, and I have to think he has a better sense of what constitutes enough evidence to charge a governor than you or I do. I seriously doubt he would go in with charges unless he has credible evidence. Not doing so would have serious repercussions for him.

Also, I think it's amusing that you're inferring that Obama is guilty in this matter and Blagojevich is innocent (i.e. he just talked about it, he didn't actually do anything!). It takes a lot of pretzel logic to turn the facts at hand into that. Predictable, but amusing nonetheless.

[stupendousman]

Also, I think it's amusing that you're inferring that Obama is guilty in this matter and Blagojevich is innocent (i.e. he just talked about it, he didn't actually do anything!). It takes a lot of pretzel logic to turn the facts at hand into that. Predictable, but amusing nonetheless.

I didn't infer any such thing. I never even said that Obama was guilty. I inferred that if all they have is Fitzgerald and one of his men talking about how they could get money for the Senate seat, they don't have much. Talk is cheap. That's why all the people who want to kill their spouses and tell people aren't indicted for anything until they've been caught actually soliciting murder.

I also said Obama was going to be in a tough spot explaining why after either he or his staff talked to the Governor (Axelrod said he did, and the news reported that on Nov. 5th Obama met with him to discuss the matter.

http://www.connecttristates.com/news...aspx?id=217582) Blago's staff was under the impression that Obama could set up Blago's wife financially, but he'd have to wait 2 years.

Again, if Blago was looking to sell, there had to be buyers lined up. I really hope you're not so naive to think that the only people to know about Blago's intention where he, his immediate staff and the feds.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Right there we have an example of why it is that Democrats are allowed to get away with murder - a complete lack of shame. Lying in court and pressuring others to do the same is "getting a blow job". Thanks for the laugh.

It's funny when it's on the other foot.

Have you forgotten everything that Bush got away with the last 8 years? Like actual murder?

I forgot that you live in the 1% Timothy McVeigh Right Wing conspiracy world. But after all your collusion to link Obama to the Blago scandal, it becomes more and more apparent that you do live in that world.

No, thank you for the laugh.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I didn't infer any such thing. I never even said that Obama was guilty. I inferred that if all they have is Fitzgerald and one of his men talking about how they could get money for the Senate seat, they don't have much. Talk is cheap. That's why all the people who want to kill their spouses and tell people aren't indicted for anything until they've been caught actually soliciting murder.

I also said Obama was going to be in a tough spot explaining why after either he or his staff talked to the Governor (Axelrod said he did, and the news reported that on Nov. 5th Obama met with him to discuss the matter.

http://www.connecttristates.com/news...aspx?id=217582) Blago's staff was under the impression that Obama could set up Blago's wife financially, but he'd have to wait 2 years.

Again, if Blago was looking to sell, there had to be buyers lined up. I really hope you're not so naive to think that the only people to know about Blago's intention where he, his immediate staff and the feds.

Logic fail. If they don't have anything tangible on Blagojevich, why again is Obama in a tough spot?

If they do have something tangible on Blagojevich, well, there has been no evidence presented linking Obama to it. Why again is he in a tough spot?

I'm sure there were others that knew of Blagojevich's intentions. I wouldn't even be surprised if Obama himself suspected something (although even for Blagojevich, to go to these depths, and be this brazen about it is surprising). Which is all the more reason for Obama and his camp to say their piece (i.e. here's who we like, but no funny business from us) and stay clear.

[Ted L. Nancy]

At this point all I can say is...

a. This is not the only politician who deserves to go to jail
b. Just one more piece of evidence that either i. we don't live in a democracy, or that ii. democracy is a joke
c. He wanted to make money working for a union.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

It's funny when it's on the other foot.

Have you forgotten everything that Bush got away with the last 8 years? Like actual murder?

...the laughs keep coming!

I forgot that you live in the 1% Timothy McVeigh Right Wing conspiracy world. But after all your collusion to link Obama to the Blago scandal, it becomes more and more apparent that you do live in that world.

I wasn't the one that linked him. David Axelrod and Blago himself did.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Ted L. Nancy 

At this point all I can say is...

a. This is not the only politician who deserves to go to jail

true.

b. Just one more piece of evidence that either i. we don't live in a democracy,

We do not. It's a Republic.

or that ii. democracy is a joke

It is. Mob rule, tyranny of the majority is a formula for tragedy.

c. He wanted to make money working for a union.

[Chongo]

The Blagojevich case is the least of BO's problems. This is the result of Rezko cooperating with Federal prosucuters. I'd be worried about what Rezko knows.