Ill. Gov. arrested in Obama successor probe

[balli]

until they find something to vindicate people like you?

IMO, the word "people" is being applied far too loosely here.

[Yonivore]

no, I say that as if you won't stop until something does, which is a bull at ude. You don't even give the benefit of the doubt, you look for to make a big deal out of in hopes that it will make Obama look bad. He's not Jesus, but he's not the ing anti-christ either man...

I just think he's a dirty politician who will be outed. We'll see...try not to cry too much in the meantime. Because, I'm not laying off.

yeah, well you've been rambling against the man since he first started running, whether he be dirty or not, so excuse me if I think your credibility on the matter might be a little bit questionable.

It's the media, who have been completely in the tank for Obama, whose credibility is trashed.

I saw the same campaign you did, and Obama was vetted like a mother er. Just because nobody found , doesn't mean they didn't look. Plus, Palin was an f'n joke. I still can't believe the Republican's trotted THAT out as the best possible candidate for the vice-presidency... jeez!

Really? Obama was allowed, by the media, to explain away every controversy and not only that, when he did, his speeches were described as nothing less than a ing sermon on the mount.

, even the media has reluctantly agreed they were biased.

They came nowhere near fully exploring his relationship with Ayers and his involvement with Acorn, his relationship with Wright was dropped after he quit his church and threw him under the bus. In fact, everytime a crisis arose -- the media would drop it as soon as Obama threw someone under the ing bus.

What's that? dig for dirt eternally until they find something to vindicate people like you?

It's what they do with Republican candidates... , they even make up and create controversy out of thin air.

[ChumpDumper]

I just think he's a dirty politician who will be outed. We'll see...try not to cry too much in the meantime. Because, I'm not laying off.

So what crime are you accusing Obama of committing?

[Yonivore]

Case in point:

In the linked video, Joe Scarborough demands to know why the media doesn't know if Barack Obama ran Blago's 2002 campaign -- and notes that Blago was already under investigation for years, so the press should have had some interest in this.

And he wants to know why hundreds of reporters were sent to Wasilla to dig up dirt on Palin and none, apparently, were sent to Chicago.

Scarborough's questions are damning -- but Barnicle's and the NYT's John Harwood's answers are more damning yet.

How do we know Obama wasn't intimately involved in Blago's 2002 run?

"Instinct," says Barnicle. And that's sufficient, he feels.

It was instinct that told the MSM that Sarah Palin was a snake-handling subre and thus required hundreds of reporters digging through the most picayune details of her life. It was also instinct that that told the MSM that Barack Obama was the Risen Christ and needed to be worshipped.

Instinct.

They make much of this virtue. It doesn't occur to them that their instincts almost all trend the same way -- to supporting liberalism and undermining conservatism.

[ChumpDumper]

And he wants to know why hundreds of reporters were sent to Wasilla to dig up dirt on Palin and none, apparently, were sent to Chicago.

Are you seriously trying to say no national reporters are located in or have ever been sent to Chicago to cover Obama since he declared his intent to run for president?

[Yonivore]

if Obama conspired with Blago, Fitgerald didn't prevent the commission of a crime. the crime of conspiracy would have occured and Obama would be on the hook with Blago. I think you're hoping for the worst despite all indications that Obama did nothing illegal. Keep the faith.

Not true. There has to be an overt act.

According to a New York Times news story, Blago's lawyer, who just coincidentally defends a lot of mobsters, says the case against his client is weak, because it's all "just words."

Right there, it appears Blago's lawyer would disagree with you. But, let's read on.

In an New York Times analysis piece, the Times asks (in the headline) In Blagojevich Case, Is It a Crime, or Just Talk?

Someone got their marching orders, eh?

Now, you obviously disagree with the proposition that Blago could be innocent if he didn't commit any overt act but, the New York Times is apparently duty-bound to seriously consider it. However, they seem over-eager to absolve Blago...almost as eager as you are to convict him:

In the case of Mr. Blagojevich, it would be legal for the governor to accept a campaign contribution from someone he appointed to the Senate seat. What would create legal problems for him is if he was tape-recorded specifically offering a seat in exchange for the contribution. What would make the case even easier to prosecute is if he was recorded offering the seat in exchange for a personal favor, like cash, a job or a job for a family member.

Indeed the government has claimed the wiretaps show that Mr. Blagojevich told his aides that he wanted to offer the seat in exchange for contributions and for personal favors, including jobs for himself and his wife.

But talk is not enough. Any case will ultimately turn on the strength of the tapes, and whether the governor made it clear to any of the candidates for the Senate seat that he would give it only in exchange for something of value.

First things first; Blago was arrested for conspiracy, where "just words" are the foundation of the charge. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more parties that a crime will be committed. Now, the law itself contains a provision to ensure that mere words are not enough to convict. Otherwise football fans who agree that a particular ref should be strung up and beaten with sticks would potentially be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to kidnap, and conspiracy to beat someone with sticks.

That provision is that a conspiracy requires an "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy, which need not need be illegal in and of itself. If one agrees to do a a burglary, buying rubber gloves and a crowbar are overt acts in furtherance of that conspiracy, even though there's no law against buying either.

The "overt act" provision keeps conspiracy from being a crime based solely on "just words," and also separates those who are just bull ting ("We should rob Fort Knox, you know that?") and those who are seriously agreeing to commit a crime.

In Blago's case, it stops being "just words" and turns into chargeable conspiracy when he begins scheduling fundraisers with businessmen and supporters of Candidate Number Five. As well as other acts. But that seems to be the clearest overt act.

On to the next misstatement of law. The NYT claims, "Any case will ultimately turn on... whether the governor made it clear to any of the candidates for the Senate seat that he would give it only in exchange for something of value."

It seems to me this cannot possibly be the standard. If it's true that a charge can be made only if one makes it clear that government favor can be had only in exchange for something of value," then the law cannot ever be broken, because those wishing to exchange government favor for cash can simply avoid saying it so directly.

They can say "You have a very low chance of getting what you want, approaching 0%, if you do not pay me, and a very high chance, approaching 100%, if you do pay me," and they would be not eligible for prosecution, as the promised favor does not turn only on payment. After all, there are other factors, accounting for 1% of the decision-making loop; the payment itself "merely" elevates that chance from 1% to 99%.

If the NYT is right about this "only" business, then there basically is no law against government corruption, because you can always say there's a one in a million chance you'd get your favor without payment. In that case, it's not true that you'd "only" get the benefit in exchange for payment. You could win that one-in-a-million lottery if you don't pony up.

So the NYTimes works kinda-hard to make a hash of the law here. Coincidentally on the same day Blago's mob lawyer claims it's all "just words."

Analysis, sure. And fine distinctions have to be made in this murky area of the law, where logrolling and political favors in exchange for other favors are legal, but political favors in exchange for direct personal enrichment are not.

But please try to get the analysis right. And not merely take dictation from Blago's lawyer, who has a curious, and rather self-interested, concept of the law of conspiracy and solicitation of bribery.

Once again, the media is taking their talking points straight from the mouths of those they're supposed to be investigating.

[Yonivore]

The Chicago Way, part sixty eight:

The ABC7 I-Team has learned that an attorney who went undercover for the FBI in the late 1980's says he told federal authorities years ago about wrongdoing by Blagojevich.

His name is Robert Cooley.

Cooley was a criminal defense lawyer in Chicago in the late 1980's who became one of the most potent witnesses against Chicago corruption, testifying for federal prosecutors in cases that resulted in dozens of convictions.

Cooley says that before Rod Blagojevich got into politics he was a bookmaker on the North Side who regularly paid the Chicago mob to operate.

...

He told ABC7 that Mr. Blagojevich regularly paid a so-called street tax to Robert "Bobby the Boxer" Abbinanti, a convicted outfit gambling collector. In the early 1980's, Abbinanti was working for convicted West Side mob boss Marco D'amico. Bookies pay street taxes to the crime syndicate in exchange for being allowed to operate such a racket.

"I predicted five years ago when he ran the first time that he was a hands on person who would be selling every position in the state of Illinois and that is exactly what happened," said Cooley.

So, here's another thing about Obama's political culture we didn't know.

On the other hand, we know that Sarah Palin once indulged an African priest who blessed her against witchcraft and that the Mat-Su Valley has a high incidence of methampthetamine use.

Oh yeah, Obama was asked a bit about the Blago case today. He responded "Don't waste your question" and expressed his preference to not answer.

Which he's done before. He tells the press "I'd rather not talk about that" and they say "Okay, seems fair." Um, yeah. Hard-news men, never afraid to go where a hot story might take them.

Meanwhile, no one bothered to ask if he ran Blago's 2002 campaign, how close they were then, if he was aware Bagojevich might be involved in criminal activity then, why he supported him in '06 when su ion of illegality abounded.

Oh, that's right, it's one of those things Mike Barnicle instructs us is unnecessary to ask about, because his "instinct" has already told him the answer.

[Yonivore]

Don't bother looking, the State of Illinois has removed the image from their website.

[ChumpDumper]

So Yoni is now arguing that Blagojevich is innocent, but Obama is guilty.

Dude has lost it.

[Creepn]

I just think he's a dirty politician who will be outed. We'll see...try not to cry too much in the meantime. Because, I'm not laying off.

Seems like your the one doing all the crying during the meantime since you are waiting for something to stick on Obama.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Not true. There has to be an overt act.

According to a New York Times news story, Blago's lawyer, who just coincidentally defends a lot of mobsters, says the case against his client is weak, because it's all "just words."

Right there, it appears Blago's lawyer would disagree with you. But, let's read on.

there's definitive proof--Blago's sleazy defense attorney said the case against his client is weak. OMG, Stop the presses!!!

Keep the faith, Yoni. KTF.

[Oh, Gee!!]

try not to cry too much in the meantime. Because, I'm not laying off.

OMG--HE must be stopped before he discovers the TRUTH!!!!

Talk about delusions of grandeur.

[Yonivore]

there's definitive proof--Blago's sleazy defense attorney said the case against his client is weak. OMG, Stop the presses!!!

Keep the faith, Yoni. KTF.

Is that where you stopped reading? Because, I was actually responding to your apparent assertion that Obama merely had to conspire with Blagojevich to be guilty of the crime.

I'm actually adding the element of the commission of an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy. I was raising the burden...not lowering it.

You really should pay attention.

[Yonivore]

OMG--HE must be stopped before he discovers the TRUTH!!!!

Talk about delusions of grandeur.

By "not laying off," I mean I intend to post every incriminating piece I find. I have no delusions that my posting here will have any effect on the outcome of this scandal.

I'm enjoying the entertaining, vituperative responses from people, such as yourself, that would prefer to attack me instead of address the points made.

Have fun with that.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Because, I was actually responding to your apparent assertion that Obama merely had to conspire with Blagojevich to be guilty of the crime.

Yoni, merely conspiring is a crime just like merely attempting or merely committing. Putting a merely in front of an act doesn't diminish the act. I said if Obama conspired with Obama he'd be on the hook too. In essence, if Obama committed the criminal act of conspiracy he'd be in the same boat as Blago. I didn't qualify or quantify what acts would equal conspiracy. Try to keep up.

I'm actually adding the element of the commission of an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy. I was raising the burden...not lowering it.

the proof is in the pudding, my friend.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm enjoying the entertaining, vituperative responses from people, such as yourself, that would prefer to attack me instead of address the points made.

It's been fun for me too. Good having you back.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, merely conspiring is a crime just like merely attempting or merely committing. Putting a merely in front of an act doesn't diminish the act. I said if Obama conspired with Obama he'd be on the hook too. In essence, if Obama committed the criminal act of conspiracy he'd be in the same boat as Blago. I didn't qualify or quantify what acts would equal conspiracy. Try to keep up.

But, you're wrong...ask one of the people who play lawyer in here. It's only a crime if an overt act is committed in the furtherance of a conspiracy.

the proof is in the pudding, my friend.

Whatever that means.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Conservative posters on this board are making my head spin. A while ago, no abuse of power, no matter how overtly political, was a bad thing.

Today, even as the US Justice Department, which doesn't exactly have a track record of covering for Democrats when blood is in the water, is going out of its way to clear the Obama team of wrong doing and Yoni is going nuts.

Just goes to show you, conservatives don't have to believe anything just as long as their rhetoric makes sense at the time.

[Yonivore]

Conservative posters on this board are making my head spin. A while ago, no abuse of power, no matter how overtly political, was a bad thing.

Huh?

Today, even as the US Justice Department, which doesn't exactly have a track record of covering for Democrats when blood is in the water, is going out of its way to clear the Obama team of wrong doing and Yoni is going nuts.

Where have they gone out of their way to clear the Obama team?

The only thing I've seen is Fitzgerald qualifying the content of the criminal complaint against Blagojevich by saying there was nothing in it that implicated the Obama team.

Big difference.

Just goes to show you, conservatives don't have to believe anything just as long as their rhetoric makes sense at the time.

Meh, liberals are just as guilty of thinking the worst of conservatives. In fact, y'all have missed the mark in some rather spectacular ways; the latest of which is all the crap drug up over the Palin candidacy which came up empty.

[Oh, Gee!!]

But, you're wrong...ask one of the people who play lawyer in here. It's only a crime if an overt act is committed in the furtherance of a conspiracy.

Okay, I'm not disputing that. I'm saying if Obama committed the crime (or was alleged to have commited the crime) of conspiracy, he'd be in the same position as Blago. I don't know what Blago said or did, but he's in trouble. It appears that Obama is not in any trouble. Try to keep up, dude. I have not defined what it means to conspire.

Whatever that means.

It means murder will out.

[balli]

Meh, liberals are just as guilty of thinking the worst of conservatives. In fact, y'all have missed the mark in some rather spectacular ways; the latest of which is all the crap drug up over the Palin candidacy which came up empty.

Drug up? That stupid went on national TV and made complete ing idiot out of herself, multiple times. She was getting ripped for being incoherent and clueless. She wasn't being ripped because "the liberals" dug up lies about her. She proved HERSELF, to be an idiot. Palin and the Republicans have nobody else to blame.

I can't believe you Yoni. The Democrats whole game plan was to ignore her. I doubt Obama even said her name once on the campaign trail. Their whole strategy seemed to be that the Sarah Palin situation speaks for itself. God I ing hate you Yoni.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, from the Fitzgerald press release of which Yoni is still completely ignorant:


In a recorded conversation on October 31, Blagojevich claimed he was approached by an associate of Senate Candidate 5 as follows: “We were approached ‘pay to play.’ That, you know, he’d raise 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a Senator.”

Most reasonable people would conclude that's a pretty overt action in furtherance of the conspiracy.

[Yonivore]

Drug up? That stupid went on national TV and made complete ing idiot out of herself, multiple times. She was getting ripped for being incoherent and clueless. She wasn't being ripped because "the liberals" dug up lies about her. She proved HERSELF, to be an idiot. Palin and the Republicans have nobody else to blame.

I can't believe you Yoni. The Democrats whole game plan was to ignore her. I doubt Obama even said her name once on the campaign trail. Their whole strategy seemed to be that the Sarah Palin situation speaks for itself. God I ing hate you Yoni.

The media ran with the rumor Trig wasn't her biological child and, the rumor persisted in some the ballijuana-like recesses of the Democrat world -- in fact, there are websites devoted to proving she wasn't Trig's mother.

Then there was the concerted effort, by Democrats with a complicit press, to make her the bad guy in the firing for that law enforcement officer -- who, tazed his own child and, by all accounts, was a pretty s my guy.

That's just two instances.

Then, there was the selective editing of the Couric interview that deliberately made it look like Palin had less foreign policy experience than she actually had.

That you believe she was and idiot -- and are okay with Joe Biden -- says how successful the campaign was.

Hate is an awful strong emotion to have for some virtual person. You sound a little deranged...and, maybe you should seek professional help.

[ChumpDumper]

The media ran with the rumor Trig wasn't her biological child

Which media? I never saw anything outside of the nutblogs.

Then there was the concerted effort, by Democrats with a complicit press, to make her the bad guy in the firing for that law enforcement officer -- who, tazed his own child and, by all accounts, was a pretty s my guy.

Completely justified. At best, she was involved in a vindictive soap opera that is unbecoming of a state governor, much less a vp candidate.

Then, there was the selective editing of the Couric interview that deliberately made it look like Palin had less foreign policy experience than she actually had.

That you believe she was and idiot -- and are okay with Joe Biden -- says how successful the campaign was.

She couldn't name one example of print media she reads.

couldn't even make up an answer.

Couric's questions were not difficult ones. Palin ed up horribly. It's too bad for you she sucked, but that doesn't change the fact that she sucked.

[doobs]

As someone who leans to the right on most issues, I am naturally inclined to vote Republican in any election. But there's a great deal about the Republican Party that I dislike: its provincialism, its anti-choice hysteria, its pandering to the Christian right . . . you know, the Palin wing.

Having said that, I do think the media was unfair to Palin. Scratch that. The media was right to be hard on Palin because she was asking to be one (weak) heartbeat away from the presidency. But the media was downright negligent in its coverage of Obama and Biden. Obama is just as inexperienced as Palin. Biden is a reckless moron 90% of the time. But the media just refused to do its job with them because, frankly, the media was voting for them.

Anyway, back to the main subject of this thread. Obviously, Blagojevich is a complete jackass. He's not an anomaly of Illinois politics, however. Illinois politics is a stank cesspool of corruption and dishonesty. I doubt there's any evidence that Obama personally did anything wrong, so I think that's a losing argument to make. It looks like this whole thing will turn on the involvement of Rahm Emanuel.

This story is interesting to me, though, because it sheds further light on the environment in which Obama started his political rise. Forget all the empty pla udes about change and hope, this guy is just a damn dirty politician. I'm willing to acknowledge that he may end up being a very good president. I just think people should readjust their expectations and realize that, as a political figure, he's nothing special. He's evasive, he triangulates, he's had questionable associations throughout his career . . . like I said, he's a damn dirty politician. No more, no less.