Illinois Governer Facing Corruption Charges

[jrrtoken]

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

Uh... yeah, it is. I'd know, cause I get it. Well, at least I used to.

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

Wait, wait, wait... so you're saying that since the Tribune supposedly went out to criticize the governor's family, it proves that the Tribune has a liberal bias, because conservative papers would never do such a thing???

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

In short: Conservative > Liberal

[GarfieldJL]

Wait, wait, wait... so you're saying that since the Tribune supposedly went out to criticize the governor's family, it proves that the Tribune has a liberal bias, because conservative papers would never do such a thing???

 

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

[jrrtoken]

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

Whoops. My point still stands, though, you're trying to plaster that conservatives would never attack someone's family, while liberals would. If you'd like to rectify or retract your statement, then that would be welcome.

[GarfieldJL]

Whoops. My point still stands, though, you're trying to plaster that conservatives would never attack someone's family, while liberals would. If you'd like to rectify or retract your statement, then that would be welcome.

 

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

[Adavardes]

I don't recall Republicans going after children though (with one exception), that tends to be more of a Democrat tactic.

 

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

 

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

[jrrtoken]

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

[GarfieldJL]

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

 

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

 

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

[Jae Onasi]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Copy of the Criminal complaint.

 

The IL lawmakers have started an impeachment panel, and Hot Rod issued a statement saying "I will be vindicated." I'm not sure how he's going to be vindicated with overwhelming evidence stacked against him, but he's refusing to resign.

 

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

[Achilles]

The Feds told the Tribune not to publish any stories that could compromise the investigation.. Since the Chicago Tribune was part of the investigation, they had no choice. When a US Attorney says 'don't publish x', you don't publish it until they say you can.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this impinge on our first amendment free press rights? AFAIK, the gov't frequently approaches media sources and asks them not to publish a story. And, again AFAIK, most media outlets will weigh the request against the perceived public good and make a decision accordingly.

 

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

[Jae Onasi]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted it and re-read one of the Tribune articles, so I edited the post. I had more information to add anyway.

[GarfieldJL]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted it and re-read one of the Tribune articles, so I edited the post. I had more information to add anyway.

 

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

[Jae Onasi]

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

 

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

 

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

[Jae Onasi]

Hot Rod has been impeached.. Vote was 114-1 for impeachment. It's pretty bad when his own political party nearly completely abandons him. The IL Senate will meet soon to start the trial, unless Blagojevich decides to resign. I'm not holding my breath on a resignation.

[Darth Avlectus]

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

 

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

 

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

[Jae Onasi]

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

[Web Rider]

Blago...sacrifical lamb.

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

 

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

Considering that Obama DIDNT associate with this guy, and was merely the senator from the same state, I guess that means that Obama ISNT who people are trying to paint him as because he DIDNT associate with this guy.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, as an update on all this:

Blago's lawyer quit the other day, stating that while he could represent someone who disagreed with his recommendations, he couldn't represent someone who refused to even listen to his recommendations in the first place. Now, plenty gets said in high-profile cases like this, but the lawyer quitting right before an impeachment trial starts is usually a bad sign.

 

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

 

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

[EnderWiggin]

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

 

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

 

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

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

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

This is actually not correct. The Tribune issued Fact Check because what Blagojevich is saying is inaccurate. He could have called witnesses and submitted evidence to defend himself, but he didn't get any information in by the deadline. He has chosen to boycott the trial instead of doing what he could to defend himself.

 

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

 

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

_EW_

I don't know why he's doing this--he's going to get called on this by someone at some point--

Blago: I wasn't allowed to bring any witnesses to the impeachment.

Reporter: Sir, you were given the opportunity to bring witnesses, but you missed the deadline. Why are you saying you aren't allowed to bring witnesses when all you had to do was submit a list by the deadline?

 

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

 

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

[EnderWiggin]

I'm not really defending him... I think he's just trying last-ditch things to keep him out of jail.

 

Not that I think it will work, though.

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

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

 

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