Fitzgerald Makes His Move for More Time; Blago Agrees!
Just a few hours ago Marcy hypothesized on Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s next move. Well, he has made the move. In a pleading just filed and encaptioned: GOVERNMENT’S UNOPPOSED FIRST MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RETURN INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h), Fitgerald relates:
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8), for a 90-day extension of time, to and including April 7, 2009, in which to seek the return of an indictment against the defendant…
As Marcy thought, the real meat of the motion is sealed, but the operative language that is public is as follows:
A number of factors have led to the government’s request for an extension and the length of the extension being sought. One factor that affects the length of the requested extension is that federal holidays have limited the dates and times that the government will be able to present evidence to the Grand Jury. The federal grand juries are not sitting during the week of December 22nd (Christmas week) or the week of December 29th (New Years Day week). The remaining factors that have led to the government’s request for an extension are stated in the Attachment hereto, which the government respectfully requests be placed under seal. The government is requesting that this Attachment be sealed so as not to compromise its ongoing investigation and so as not to reveal matters occurring before the Grand Jury.
But the Key language that I think any lawyer would find fascinating here is at the very end of the document:
Following telephone calls and/or meetings over the past week, counsel for both Blagojevich and Harris have represented that they do not object to this motion. (emphasis added)
As Marcy noted, this is in the face of the Senate Democrats trying to make the legally touchy case that they can avoid seating Burris and adds to the pressure on the legislative impeachment committee.
So why did Fitzgerald do it? Easy, he needs more time to get all the evidence, especially the most recently acquired material (which is still coming in on the Senate seat portion of the case) organized to his meticulous satisfaction.
The much better question is why the defendants both agreed to the delay with no opposition whatsoever. From a political perspective, you could say the longer Blago stays in office and it’s "business as usual" the more he legitimizes himself, he is just extending out the clock and trying to make things look normal. But, from the legal, criminal defense, perspective this does not make sense at all for Blago. If I am Blago’s lawyer, and if we were truly going to fight the charges; I would want to get on with it. I would want to force prosecutor Fitzgerald’s hand, especially so if I thought the US Atty couldn’t make his case — I’d force the timeline to make him put up his goods or dismiss in order to refile it later. And I would want the public to see me demanding a timely opportunity to fight the charges and prove my innocence and would relish the though of putting the adversary on their heels.
Now, some may argue that the defense did this because they knew the court would grant an opposed motion, and did not want to get on the dark side of the judge. I don’t buy this as a solid explanation, no defendant under these circumstances is going to get in any hot water for demanding speedy trial rights.
The only explanation that comes easily to the discussion is that both defendants wish to curry favor with, and appear reasonable to, the prosecution. This could be in the form of pure comity, the necessity of time to negotiate a plea, or both. My money is on both.
Thanks very much bmaz.
digg
Any chance in your opinion that Blago thinks he can flip on someone else in return for a better deal?
You should change the sentence to “…form of pure comedy,….” Comity hell. Where’s true comity found these days except at the bottom of a bottle.
This development is a pure shit sandwich for the Nation and getting our devastated house in order. That Harry Reid thinks having one more Senator beholding to special, unethical interests is bad form, I say it’d be business as usual. Christ what a mess!
My bet: Blago believes that the longer he can remain in office, the more likely he is to get a good political deal to leave. Everything has a price in Blagoland, it seems.
His choice for Obama’s seat was a completely cynical move. He’s playing the race card, hoping that the dems will back down. Note that the other person he talked to was also black.
I know that everybody says that Burris is a good choice, but the mere fact that he accepted under these circumstances calls his judgement into question.
Also, the sitting Gov has a lot of power. Given the number of people hunting his head, Blago may well want to retain control of the executive branch.
Boxturtle (This round goes to Blago)
The fact remains that Burris was legally appointed, at least so far as my admittedly meager grasp of these things goes; as to his “judgement”, I find that I am in total accord with you (considering that, unlike the current ‘head’ of Walmart, he does not ‘earn’ $16,000 an hour, his ‘forgotten $14,000 contribution, does not bode well, not to mention his ‘tool-ish’ assertions) yet, when when it comes to Congress, generally, ‘good’ judgement appears to neither be ‘necessary’ nor especially ‘valued’…
Seat Roland Burris.
And find out what Blago drinks with his coffee: get some to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi right away. If we’d had Blago’s balls on Capitol Hill the past eight years, the world might be a much better place.
Get on with the people’s business, Harry. Stop dicking around with your favorite hobby: fucking over Democrats.
Quit your fiddling.
BMAZ, IANAL so I can’t really comment on the lawyerly tactics being used by all parties. However, from a political perspective, I think Blago is showing himself a step ahead of the opposition.
What a fun way to start the new year. Now if we only didn’t have the latest Israel invasion, the economy, the Afghan & Iraq wars, etc. to worry about.
This isn’t about the law. It’s his personality. He’s been pulling sh*t like this for years.
I have a well-founded gut feel that Fitz knew he wanted an extension at least a week ago.
Regardless of the mans qualifications, I don’t see how he can be seated with the cloud that currently hangs over Blago. Especially since he gave $14K to Blago, then claimed he doesn’t remember everyone he gave 14K.
Boxturtle (Still can’t believe that ANYONE qualified for the position is stupid enough to accept a Blago appt)
You’re thinking like a lawyer, bmaz. And you’re a good one. (We’ll get back to that.)
But I’m thinking like a shrink. Blago is nuts! Did he look calm, cool, and collected yesterday? Even the NY Times, in today’s editorial questioned his sanity:
So… could it be that his counsel suggested one course, the one that makes legal sense (in accord with your legal expertise, bmaz), but Blago, the nut case, is in charge and he decreed in terms of the short-term gain = to delay?
That scenario makes sense to me!
I can only imagine being this guy’s lawyer. And I’d hate to be his shrink!
Hmm, do you think he has one, TheraP; a ’shrink’, I mean.
Blago doesn’t appear to be much interested in ‘learning’ about himself or grappling with those areas of self which might profit from examination or ‘growth’.
But I agree, such a ‘task’, for any shrink, would be a ‘challenging opportunity’.
;~D
I doubt he has a shrink. First, he’d have to recognize he has a problem. It goes downhill from there….
That’s how things appear to me, TheraP.
Downhill … right ’smartly’.
Well, lawyers tend to have their own uncontrollable egos, and in a high profile case their reputations and appearances are on the line too. There is a very short limit on how much tomfoolery they will put up with for short term PR stunts if it is affecting their ability to do their job under the theory of case they have in mind. Blag already tested that limit by trying to name Burris; there is something else going on with the stipulated extension I believe.
“…there is something else going on … I believe.”
Kind of figured you suspeculated something ‘else’, bmaz.
;~)
Your ’suspeculation’, should you care to share it, has my rapt interest and attention.
DW
My guess is they are either negotiating a resolution or laying the foundation for amicable negotiations.
Having watched Blagojevich’s antics for years and yesterday’s most recent addition to them, I find this very funny. Fitzgerald may move like frozen molasses but he doesn’t give up and there is no deal he would or could offer that Blago would ever accept. Blago’s natural response is pretty much anything is to attack. He doesn’t do “amicable”.
And I suppose a governors salary is better than no salary at all.
I won’t disagree at all with your legal expertise here. But could it also be that his lawyer, down the road, will use insanity and something like that as a defense?
Just following along here. Mostly in a very silent vein.
Kudos for all your and EW’s hard work!
Blago will probably show up in court wearing a funny hat and drooling. Might be fun to watch.
I would like to see some polling on how much support the Burris selection has instate because my guess is it is pretty close to zero. So no, don’t seat Burris.
As for Fitzgerald, he has an annoying habit of dithering. Is there a reason he can’t come up with an indictment and then amend it later?
Absolutely. And nobody seems to be questioning his qualifications.
But these are EXTRAORDINARY circumstances. The Gov is under indictment for trying to sell the seat for personal gain and released telephone conversations strongly support that accusation. There is at least the appearence of impropriaty, you must admit.
Burris should withdraw. If he doesn’t, the senate should decline to seat him.
Though I seem to remember that the Senate can seat someone conditionally. That might be the way to go. Does anyone remember if thats true?
Boxturtle (Or is this just really good scotch?)
I question his qualifications if he gave Blago $14K and doesn’t remember it. It’s not like me giving $25.00 to some candidate and not remembering. He seems to have told a lie about that.
I recall him saying something like “Was it that much?” Do all of you know how much you have contributed to candidates over the last two or three elections?
I sure don’t, I would have to check my records to find out.
No, I don’t remember but I certainly would remember $14K to the gov. That’s not pocket change.
Should have added that I don’t have a dog in this fight. I really think a special election should have been held because the people of Illinois have the right to be heard.
I don’t think they can afford it. Very expensive.
Being from Ca I understand “broke” in a big way. An election would have been the fair way but I do understand the cost. Horrible when people don’t get to have their opinions registered because of money. Just not quite democratic to me.
If I had to sum up the feelings of Illinoisans it is that they want Blago gone yesterday. They don’t have a problem with a governor naming someone to fill out Obama’s term just not this one.
Although the reporter’s question was about how Burris would be tainted with all his ties to Blago (there are many beyond donations), not about the amount. Burris used “That much?” to dodge the question, which he did very clumsily and got really fidgety. Never answered it.
Yes, why is there not a huge movement to get him to do that?
I think Blago gave himself a certain amount of protection by selecting Burris and skilfully pointing out that he would be the only black senator and if they don’t seat him there will be none.
So a public movement to get him to withdraw could be attacked. Reid’s suggestion that the senate would refuse to seat him is already starting the first few salvos of that.
But I’ll bet the only time his phone ISN’T ringing is when he’s on it.
Boxturtle (Agrees with statement that Reid and Pelosi should be drinking whatever Blago is)
Again my suggestion is to make the Burris selection part of the impeachment bill. If they can find that Blago attempted to sell the office then they can also find that he tried a later appointment to subvert the impeachment process.
Seems like we would have learned about EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES by now. Does the Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell, or the Patriot Act, or maybe even the march to war with Iraq?
There is a process defined by statute, let’s follow it for once and leave the panic mode decision making to others.
Unless they can show abject corruption or something on Burris (and from what I have seen, they cannot), I agree these do not appear to be extraordinary circumstances. I will also add that, from what I have seen, I am not sure the Senate can just refuse to seat him (See: Powell, Adam Clayton).
Everybody in this whole vignette seems to be running around like chickens with their heads chopped off.
Your point is well taken. That phrase has been misused in the past and no doubt will be in the future.
If we seat Burris, we have good cause to suspect that he bought his way into it. But no proof, not even enough evidence to go to court on that! But he’ll always be suspect.
Blago hasn’t been convicted or impeached. And the Ill supreme court has already declined to remove him. If we say a Gov has to stop being Gov upon an accusation, I hereby accuse every Gov I don’t like of selling appointed positions!
If we think only of the above, we must seat Burris.
But there’s more to it than that. That’s why I call for extraordinary circumstances. If you have a recording of a CEO defrauding the company, you don’t wait for a trial. You put him on leave with pay RIGHT THEN, and change all the passwords.
Boxturtle (I can’t understand why Burris would take the seat)
BT, I think the prisons have several former CEO’s that fought every inch of the way to the cell door – regardless of the evidence against them.
I think Burris just wants to be a Senator. Based on what I have read of his record, he is pretty clean, so maybe he just rationalizes it in his own mind. Who really knows?
I hope you understand how we could have PTSD from dealing with everything that’s occurred. I would like nothing better than to be able to trust a process and the people following it in our government. I’m willing to wait and watch and hold my breath. That’s as far as I go.
I’d love to be his shrink! Job security, research papers, international seminars all from one patient!
Boxturtle (And professional ethics be darned, there’s MONEY in a book about him!)
But if you were his shrink, BoxTurtle, I hope you’d be an ethical shrink. And there’s no book deal when you’re work is confidential! (or bye bye to your license!)
Quite using my ethics against me, you don’t even know for sure I’ve got any!
Boxturtle (Bet If I gave Blago a cut of the book, he’d sign a release)
Yeah, but you’d have to think of your reputation with your peers. And it would not really help your current patients either. That would cause them to fear you’d try to do the same with them.
I can see you’re not a therapist – just after the money. Ethics means you have to put your professional responsibilities first. You’d be seeing a guy who is not a good candidate for therapy, thus it would be taking money under false pretenses (=a false therapy). And you’d be doing it for the idea of a book and seminars (= not putting your patient’s interests first). You’d have trouble getting past me as a supervisor!
Don’t forget. I spent 7 years on a State Ethics committee. Your proposed behavior is not looking very hopeful… when the complaint comes in…
*sigh*
There’s goes another million bucks.
Boxturtle (Where are the crooks like Blago when I need one?)
Ok, I can see you have a conscience! Sorry about the million bucks. But you’ve saved your reputation!
Money isn’t everything. But having ethics takes you a long way.
There’s money in a book on The Fitz Man…
We could call it: Fitzgerald: No Comment, Throwing Sand, and other
Odds and Ends.
I’m going with the idea Blaggo wants more time to make a deal.
I have no insights – but it does seem to me that it makes it harder for the court to authorize prompt turnover of the tapes to the committee, if Fitzgerald, who has been working the case for months stretching to years now, and who pulled the trigger on the timing, still has thousands of tapes for investigators to review. It not only sets the scene a bit for delays (so for Defendants to request additional time to respond to the prosecutor’s pending motion) but also fleshes the argument as to how have defendants had time to determine whether there are exculpatory calls that should be provided with the cherrypicks, etc. when even the prosecutor needs 90 days to finish listening to existing tapes?
It would have been so much better if the IL leg had very quickly changed the legislation granting the Gov the power to appoint and gone back to the constitutional default of a required election, then a lot of the rest of this impeachment/crim stuff could have been dealt with without the maneuvering that Blagojevich just pulled off on his appointment. What was Burris thinking to accept?
Oh well, in other news, the world is imploding.
Republicans would have liked a special election because it would have given them a shot at the seat whereas a Democratic governor or his successor would have given them none. But the fact is that their shot at actually winning the seat was extremely slim.
A special election would have cost $30-$50 million and the state is already something like $5 billion behind in its payments. And with the economy tanking there are real reasons to avoid one.
Heh, no kidding. Part and parcel with that, it sure would have been nice if Fucking Harry Reid had not have demanded that there be NO such special election.
From TPM, “as the world turns”
It seems obvious that the specific acts Blago engaged in other than talking remain undefined. It may be that Blago’s real problem will stem from the acts of as yet unidentifed co-conspirators. What are the presently identifed acts of Blago which constitute criminal conduct? Certainly this delay plays in his favor.
Here’s my read of the complaint. NAL, but it should be a reasonable review.
I know it would be expensive, but that have to do that anyway for Emmanuel’s seat and running them together might save some $$ – besides, someone needs to be spending in this economy (ok, bad snark on the last part there) Reid seems to have this concept that nutcases will always come around – I’m sure he thought Blagojevich would step down, but W and Cheney have set the standard on who to keep on keeping on.
Emanuel’s seat is a single district. It’s a big state.
New Christy post up
I disagree with your conclusions in the last para as the only possibilities.
I don’t think anything is lost for a defendant in a white collar criminal case with delay. In fact, I would say that delay, though certainly case specific, is almost always, based on my experience, to the defendant’s (putative or otherwise) benefit.
They may well be seeking to curry favor or buy time for a plea, though I agree that agreeing curries favor with the feds, and there is little public indicia of pleas being discussed, and I’d be willing to bet they’re not being discussed just based on publicly available material on mind-sets of the defendants.
So why would you agree to it? Simply so that your delaying the time you are on trial and in court. So long as there is no trial, Blago has nothing to answer for, at least in a court of law. And, considering that most people who are tried in federal criminal court are convicted, extending that conviction into the future is usually in the clients interest. Basically, the government asking for an extension doesn’t mean the gov’t is prepared to go, it most likely means they simply want an extension – or, to put it in other words, do you believe that Fitz isn’t ready to go after announcing the indictments publicly? I don’t (and I wouldn’t believe it of any federal prosecutor).
I also don’t agree with the idea that demanding a speedy trial shows that your fighting the allegations more so than if you agree to delay. A confident defendant (which for the most part is any white collar defendant) doesn’t think they have anything to answer to or for, so the government asking for more time would, to them, seem better PR (the idea the gov’t isn’t ready or can’t prove it’s case) than trying to “game” the system by forcing to the gov’t to shoot early.
________________________________________
I’d happily stick around to debate this, but I’m doing my CLE, so if anyone wants more (and you may not, which I will have to live with), it will have to be later or another day).
It’s been my experience a lot of clients are inclined to see these sorts of delays more in the nature of reprieves – particularly those in denial, or in the thralls of hubris, or with an Axis II personality disorder.
There’s also the mundane, practical but nonetheless important consideration that facing criminal charges tends to stress one’s monetary resources. In addition to the implications in the Affidavit filed with the Complaint of MacBlago appearing to be in urgent need of funds, I seem to recall reports of MacBlago being behind in payments to the lawyers acting in his interests while Fitzgerald has been climbing up the ladder of indictments, plea deals, trials and sentence deals towards him, even before this Complaint was filed.
I wouldn’t use the term reprieve, but that is within the scope of the idea I put forth. And yes, money may play into it, but typically defense attorneys get big payments up front – say for through the trial – so the money is usually spent up front, though obviously that depends on the client’s resources. It’s not smart practice to let someone who may go to jail run up a bill.
Anyway, still studying. 8 hours left.
“…government IS’NT prepared to go….”
“…though I DON’T agree….”
It’d be better w/o the typos.
48 – I agreed it would be expensive, but I still think that would have been the best solution. And no state has money now (Krugman has an interesting piece up on the 50 Herbert Hoovers) and for that matter, they’ve mostly been being driven into a difficulties long before the recession hit hard. The country is broke and this last national election cost staggering amounts, but there ya go.
I understand the $$$$ point and obviously the party claims on the seat, but I still think that would have been the way to go. Doesn’t matter though, bc that’s not how it went and now we get to have the Burris circus for awhile.
And still, elsewhere in the world, implosion.
51 – LOL On the 31st, eh? Have fun and I hope you didn’t get stuck with something like “Traffic School for Lawyers” to pick up your hours.
it’s not due till Feb 1, and only 12 hours left!
They now let you do it all by computer here now. Just go through a menu of courses on a website, pick the ones you want and stream them in. Put the thing in a tiny window in the corner of your screen and go about your business as usual. Very handy.
Of course that may be what you are doing there…..
I do NY CLE, not AZ. I have tapes to listen to. Don’t mind it, usually learn stuff. They have this one guy who’s a prof at Albany who is excellent.
I did not think you were here from prior encounters with you. Just thought there might be a similar program in your jurisdiction. I go to a couple a year live that really interest me, as they come around, and then fill in the rest of the hours online to meet the requirement. They will let you do audiotapes here, but only for either 4 or 6 hours of yearly credit I think; plus getting the tapes from the bar is a hassle, they take forever to send them.
You are exactly right about extensions of time for rendering the indictment being a fairly common thing. I have no beef with Fitz in any of that.
As Marcy and many in the know here at FDL have pointed out Fitz is one thorough prosecutor…
It sounds as if several folks have walked down that red carpet that Fitz rolled out during that press conference and have made contact with Fitz to “talk”. If more information had been presented through the “red carpet” roll out it only makes sense that Fitz would need more time to investigate what these folks have shared with Fitz.
As a regular folk looking from the outside in it would appear that giving Fitz more time to gather information and to investigate that information that that would help seal Blago’s fate in a more substantive way.
No one has been indicted.
Blago and Harris were arrested, but no indictments have been issued, or handed down, or anything.
So when people write, “Well, Blago hasn’t been convicted and he’s innocent until proven guilty” I think you should also write that he’s not been indicted either. And the prosecutor just said he needs another 90 days to come up with something, maybe an indictment.
Blago isn’t leaving. Do you really think Illinois should be without a Senator for three months, or more? I don’t.
Seat Burris. There is no ethical stain. I challenge you to find a Democrat in Illinois who hasn’t donated to Blago.
That’s not what he “said.” Seriously, if they had to they could indict now. You can also indict and then produce a superseding indictment – which isn’t uncommmon – and then even supersede that indictment.
They wouldn’t have announced if they couldn’t go forward.
Don’t read too much into the fact that they asked for an extension.
But, back to studying.
There’s a great simulated transcript dealing with this objection at thecapitolfaxblog, showing the absurdity of trying to explain away what was on the tapes. Guilty is a legal concept. Tainting the appointment process is not. It’s to be judged by the Senate. Congress has rejected fraudulent elections without any underlying indictment to point to. The same is true here. He DID taint the procedure, already. I don’t have to give up any of his legal rights to say that he did things that justify rejecting his appointment.
This defense reminds me of Bill Murray’s army entrance interview in Stripes.
“Convicted? Oh, no, definitely never convicted.”
Everyone needs to put “innocent till proven guilty” out of their minds. That’s part of how we got here. We know what he said, and these are not just words, not just play-acting. His words were directives to staff to get things done, and staff came back and said, I followed those directives. The question of whether a jury will find him “guilty under the law” is irrelevant to our own judgment of whether he is fit to govern or to make appointments to the office he tried to sell for personal gain.
Boy, that sure sounds definitive. Except, of course, it is not. In fact, the US Supreme court has touched on the issue in the Adam Clayton Powell case. Before you go about berating people on what they need to do like you are some kind of supreme authority, you might actually read the case of Powell v. McCormack and phrase your personal opinion a bit more humbly.
Justice Earl Warre wrote for the court:
So, it is by no means clear cut that the Senate can absolutely refuse to seat Burris. It is possible, but is is also quite possible that the better legal argument rests with Burris and his demand to be seated. He appears to possess the basic qualifications for office, which are that he be be at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen and “an inhabitant” of the state of Illinois.
OT, Mukasey has engaged in fucking cover-arse obstruction
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._1231.html
Phoenix, You must be from Chicago, as you are right on the money. Mell got in Eugene Sawyers face and told him he would run for mayor whether he wanted to or not. You could see the fear in Sawyers face.
I do the NLF courses. Cheap, usually entertaining enough, and all the credits in one box. Very easy.
I have wondered about a dovetailing with a nuke the nominations and appointees early 111th strategem. The unseated senate seats could be MN, NM, NY, IL. IL always makes good anthropomorphic political theater. I was picturing Reid having to face diminished filled seats on his side of the aisle with respect to early WPA legislation, similarly. Some of the cyberposting experts elsewhere are examining 17th amendment issues about whether senate would deign to seat. I agree the tenor of the squabbling seems excessive. It could be interesting if Blago’s prosecutor’s close relistening to some of the tapes denatures some of the charges. On first look, a mere 14.K donation probably would be routine survival in a machined party state.
By the way, I’m writing as an Illinois Democrat who has never donated to Blagojevich, to answer the other objection.
But I imagine you’re really asking about elected officials. The first one I checked, David Orr, Cook County Clerk, has never donated either personally or through his campaign committee, to Blagojevich.
I then checked Pat Quinn, the Lt. Governor. He likewise has never contributed, either personally nor through his campaign committee. (Note that his campaign committee did have to list two in-kind contributions totaling about $900 since some joint campaign literature was printed early in the 2002 general election. In 2006, though he was on the same ballot line as Blagojevich, they never mentioned each other, and Quinn listed no such joint expenditures.
Likewise, Congressman Davis never seems to have contributed to a Blagojevich, personally nor through his committee.
That’s just the first three I thought to check. Can we stop with the “every Dem in Illinois must have contributed” thing? For that matter, can we stop with the “must haves”. These things are verifiable, and so people should either check their facts or not say them.
it is colossal humbuggery for any politician, any politically-engaged commentator[official pundit or blogger], to denounce the governor of illinois, to discredit his appointment to the vacant senate seat.
especially when all that they know is based on a very corrupt, republican usda’s[patrick fitzgerald] press conference announcing an indictment of the governor of illinois. now, some think that patrick fitzgerald is an honorable man. i do not. he is[has been] a gunsell for fascist bastids. the purported “progressive left” lionized fitzgerald because of his lengthy investigation into the “outing” of valerie plame wilson. but, i think that any objective review of his conduct of that investigation, and its prosecution, is one of egregious malfeasance. the scooter was served up as the ham sandwich and fitz protected the real boars[bush, cheney, rove, addington, to name but a few]. succinctly, it was a very well tailored investigation, prosecution.
i think that this blagojevitch indictment may involve lots of reptillian[and stealth reptillian, aka demtillian] sleaze. one of the most interesting aspects concerning the evidence sustaining this indictment is the issue of WIRETAPPING. one of the questions that must be asked is this one:
since we have learned that the resident, george walker bush, ordered illegal wiretapping within hours of his false swearing ceremony, and since we have learned that we are going to be denied access to the extent of that wiretapping, i think that there is a distinct possibility that the indictment promulgated by fitzpatrick is “tainted”….unsustainable in a court ruled by an honest judge[but, as the late sherman skolnick kept informing us, there are no such courts/judges in the chicago jurisdiction].
i care to add that this bush-ordered illegal wiretapping may have been a resumption of the practices of previous presidents[all the way back to fdr and the fbi’s/oni’s black bag ops on amerikan pols/citizens]. recognizing this program, perhaps you can use this as one of the excuses for a democratic party becoming supine, becoming an ally of the reptillian party, in the destruction of the u.s. constitution/bill of rights.
personally, i don’t think they had to be blackmailed. politicians, whether they employ the moniker r, d, are still members of the all-encompassing criminal syndicate. but that is just how my studies into amerikan politics since the ascendancy of the first gangster president, harry truman, have informed me.
i shall just close this section this way, the activities fitzgerald served up in his indictment at this stage are allegations only. a trial and a jury verdict will be required to transform these republican allegations into criminal acts. that is a forthcoming situation. for all we know, these charges could be dropped at any time in the future, prior to any trial.
therefore, this demtillian/reptillian rush to deny blagojevitch his consitutional protections is quite anti-constitutional. and i think we should pause to reflect upon this demtillian/reptillian rush to judgment.
HAVING SAID THAT, i care to relate the realities of post ww2 amerikan politics as i have encountered them.
for the overture of this discussion, let us just understand that i sat in golf locker rooms, around dinner tables in private residences, dinner tables at private clubs, where political objectives were discussed. amongst those individuals that made/enforced decisions as to who would be candidates for public office and as to how the voting would be tabulated[fraudulent outcomes occurred long before electronic voting machines were introduced]. over my lifetime, i must tell you that i have concluded that most u.s. elections are a very theatrical event[i.e., unreal].
my observations of u.s. politics have occurred in ohio and texas. my brother-in-law, involved in california politics, informs me that my observations into political corruption in those two states are similar to what he observed in california.
one aspect of post ww2 politics that i noticed was that the politician with a long-term incumbency objective possessed a country property. and that it was developed for “boys only” events. a stock tank well stocked with fish for easy catching. perhaps a clubhouse. and more assets of that kind.
the most important aspect of that property was that it be out of the line of sight of the electorate and the press. so that its usage was virtually secret.
actually, i think that the press knew of some of these “entertainment” properties. but, the press being whores, kept those secrets.
here is one story. i could tell you many more. but this one is illustrative of how it has been being done in the usa for decades. i think it is the story of the political realities that have governed the usa since ww2.
to set the scene, imagine that you are a judge in one of america’s major industrial states[illinois, indiana, michigan, ohio, etc]. with no public fanfare or notification, you are notified that you are going to be feted at an “outing” on a saturday at a sporting club in the country. and you don’t even have to drive to get there, transport will have been arranged. moreover, you will learn that the “outing” will be financed by contributions to your political party….that the cost to a non-judicial attendee will be $5,000.
the financiers of the “outing” would be well-known were they to be publicly identified. they will all be ceo’s, coo’s, chief counsels of major corporations with issues before those courts administered by those judges[the guests of honor].
for the purposes of illustration, let us consider that for 50 judges there would be 50 corporate litigants attending the “outing”. and up front, they would have invested $250,000 in that “outing”. in this instance, with the up-front proceeds going to the state party[in this instance, reptillian].
but what always interested me, as sort of a bystander, was what was left on the floor after the “guests” left. there would be these envelopes filled with cash. these would be completely anonymous.
so, 50 “guests” with issues before state courts. and after the “outing”, 50 anonymous envelopes stuffed with cash[approx $10k/envelope] just lying around on the floor. untraceable. $500,000 that could go anywhere. at anytime.
and that is a small picture of how it works on one occasion in one year.
i think you can make the extrapolations.
that is the amerikan political system. recognizing this reality, i think you might have a better understanding of the humbuggery of the pols’ shock at the purported blagojevitch telephone conversations.
if you are interested in more of how the corruption works, let me know. i would be more than pleased to tell you more stories of how the pols, and their handlers/financiers, launder your money. and put it into their offshore accounts.
Pretty interesting interchanges upthread. ACPowell’s Justia case is a welcome read for the new year. He was a local outspoken controversy gravitating person who kept getting elected. It will be enjoyable to refresh the memory reading into his other history on the web; there are some great camera images of his encounters, as well. I believe his borough was visible from the foothills in the town where I went to highschool, though a lot of his service was after I pretty much lived elsewhere on that seaboard and beyond. Also, on the sidenote comments, I am one who favors a mixture of some states having campaigns for judges (though there is substantial public fretting about the practice), and others preferring judges be more private; that is OT. In a state in which I worked in campaign finance bookkeeping it was common for longterm politicians to donate to help lesser pols, but I am far from current on the froth in IL.