Blago To Use Obama Team's Internal Report As Defense Against Impeachment
In the latest funny move from the Rod Blagojevich scandal, Blago's defense team now says it plans to introduce a new piece of evidence to defend him against impeachment: The internal report that the Obama transition team put out last week in order to exonerate itself from any of his alleged muck.
Blagojevich lawyer Ed Genson told the Chicago Sun-Times that this move was being done after the legislature refused his request to subpoena Valerie Jarrett and Rahm Emanuel: "Since I can't subpoena anyone, this is the next best thing."
The logic here is understandable. After all, if the Obama team says they never discussed any corrupt bargains with Blagojevich, then it would follow that Blagojevich didn't discuss any dirty deals with the Obama people. It's unclear just how much credence the legislature will give him on this.
Right.
"If they say they didn't take the bait then I must not have been fishing"
Fail.
:-)
December 29, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's a poor defense attorney supposed to do with a client like Blago except grasp at straws?
December 29, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
the logic is understandable, but it's mostly a game of misdirection.
just because governor blagojevich didn't attempt to sell the seat to a friend of president-elect obama through obama, doesn't mean the governor didn't try to sell it to anyone else.
this doesn't change much of anything, especially since pat fitzgerald remarked at the press conference that the president-elect was not involved and is not implicated in any wrongdoing.
December 29, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the IL legislature will get very far with the alleged selling of the Senate seat. Seems like Blago did more boasting and ranting to his inner circle than anything else. That's not a crime.
However, there seem to actual crimes connected with some of his other shake downs, like his insistence that Children's Hospital give him $50K before he would release the $8 million they expected from the state.
December 29, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blagojevich is on tape discussing "selling the seat" with his aides. In the tapes he calls Obama all kinds of disgusting names.....the fact that Obama or his transition team did not know what kind of "scheme" Blagojevich was cooking up does not change the fact that Blago tried to get money by selling the Senate seat. The tapes will speak for themselves.
December 29, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blago did more than boast and rant. He planned with aides to enrich himself, and showed that efforts were made to fulfill his wishes. That's enough for conspiracy, even if he didn't get results, and even if he never contacted Obama's campaign directly.
December 29, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're giving him way too much credit. Blago didn't plan; he ranted about the seat being "gold" and how he wasn't giving it away.
But, even according to Obama, he or his staff *never* asked them for anything in exchange for appointing anyone to the seat.
If you're caught on tape talking to your family about how much money is in Bank of America and how you'd love to have some for yourself, blah, blah, blah, if they can't prove that you did anything beyond talk, I don't see how that's a crime. I think they'd have to show that you cased the bank or studied the floor plans or figured out the schedule of the guards or when the Brinks truck arrived to allege a conspiracy.
December 29, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if you send your cousin in to take pictures of various BOA branches, catalog which ones would be the most lucrative to rob and then discuss how you and your family is going to pull off robbing them - it becomes a crime. By the time you have targeted several of those branches with successful operations; It's pretty difficult to say: "But we weren't serious about robbing the headquarters - we just discussed that one!"
December 29, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you but when and how did Blago send his "cousin" to ask Obama or anyone else for money for that seat?
He's apparently been told that he would only get "appreciation." It seems like his aides told him they had made the "ask" and been rebuffed. There's no evidence that his aides did that. They just told Blago what he wanted to hear.
They also told him that they'd communicated his wishes about firing those editorial writers to the Tribune but the Tribune says that never happened either.
I think Blago = Walter Mitty.
December 29, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've mentioned before, my GJ served up more true bills than I can recall over a 36 month period, and I reiterate that it's relatively easy to indict (as opposed to convicting). For one thing, we're dealing with "probable cause" vs. "beyond reasonable doubt". Second, all that's needed for a true bill is a simple majority (12-11) instead of unanimity. Third, and possibly the most noteworthy, is it's ALL the prosecutor's show. No defense attorneys are allowed to cross examine witnesses, and the accused are rarely called to testify because the prosecutor doesn't want to tip his/her hand.
All that being said, the stigma of an indictment is enough to make most people assume guilt, even if none was actually present ("His lawyers got him off").
December 29, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a defense to conspiracy (an inchoate crime). His lawyer knows that. All they need is an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. So if one of his aides proposition Jarret or anyone else close to them, that's it.
December 29, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but even the Obama folks, including Jarrett and Rahm, say that no one connected with Blago ever asked them for any quid pro quo.
I don't think there will be any charges related to the Senate seat. I do think there will be charges related to some of the other instances where he actually tried a shake down.
December 29, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
does there have to be a crime for impeachment? can't the legislature decide the executive is incapable of performing the duties of office and hand the executive a pink slip?
December 29, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, the Illinois Constitution reads:
"The House of Representatives has the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of the members elected, to impeach Executive and Judicial officers."
There is no "high crimes" language like the US Constitution.
December 29, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When
sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, or
affirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor
is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence
of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgment shall not
extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to
hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer,
whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to
prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)"
The Senate's standard for removing from office requires the Senate to "do justice to the law."
Pretty vague if you asked me and I am sure there are plenty of IL lawyers and State Senators looking now to try to figure out what that meeans.
December 29, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was "nope" to the first question; second one was yes.
December 29, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wild talk does not make for a conspiracy.
Legally, the burden is on the prosecution. The public evidence so far is insufficient to justice.
Politically, Fitzgerald has already got Blago convicted absent a compelling defense. I suspect Harris will be pressured to testify against Blago, and might even lie.
December 29, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The logic here is understandable. After all, if the Obama team says they never discussed any corrupt bargains with Blagojevich, then it would follow that Blagojevich didn't discuss any dirty deals with the Obama people.
Yeah, but why does that even matter? Discussing dirty deals with the Obama team wasn't what the impeachment would be for or even anything the Fitzgerald indictment accused him of.
December 29, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Article on MyDD:
December 29, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink