Um, sorry. But he's guilty of trying to sell a Senate seat.
That was a pretty poorly written blog.
"I-Blagojevich is really accused of doing nothing outside of merely JUST plotting to do something. " This is called conspiracy. Conspiracy to sell a senate seat I believe would be a prosecutable crime.
"II- Even if Blagojevich was actually caught DOING something, that is actually accepting favors for Obama’s Senate seat, although that would be illegal, it would not be in its essence outside of the norm of what politicians do routinely." So, uh... assuming the assumption that 'it wouldnot be in its essence outside of the norm of what politicians do routinely' is correct, that would supercede all legal statutes?
As a former member of a Federal Grand Jury for three years, I can say that the conspiracy charge is valid. We indicted several unsavory people on conspiracy to commit an act, even when there wasn't enough evidence to get a true bill on the act, itself, in some cases.
Unfortunately, an indictment is not a conviction; this is why we have courts of law. But the stigma of an indictment, IMO, never goes away.
Miguelitoh2o, not sure if you're a lawyer or if you are at all familiar with the law in the state of illinois, but I think what the blog writer is making is a legal case. Blagojevitch talked about doing something illegal. HE DIDN'T DO IT. I wish his lawyer luck in court trying to get a conviction on that basis.
II- I think the essence of this point is that all politicians do favors for a reason. Whether it is right or not is not really relevant to the argument here. This has to do with the legality of the matter. So yes if Blago was caught with a bag of money for Obama's seat, that would be illegal, but that would be the exact same thing done differently by other politicians.
Obama was managing this crisis. In politics it's called: "noise"; whether it is something of your own creation or not, whether it is directly related to your activities or not does not matter. If it impedes your message, you need to manage it. That's what Obama has been doing.
Generally speaking, when a defendant hires a lawyer, he wants him to prevent a conviction.
And no, the person who wrote the blog you link to doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony. In a federal case, the prosecution is only required to show that more than one person agreed to commit a federal crime in the future. Unlike some states, federal law does not require evidence of any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994).
Blago's F-bombed.
Dude, you're right. I meant to say: "I wish the prosecutor luck in trying to get a conviction on that basis"
But this statement you made makes my point for me:
"In a federal case, the prosecution is only required to show that more than one person agreed to commit a federal crime in the future."
Right.
None of those phone calls that have been released prove that, unless Fitzgerald has something else in his back pocket. But all we have is Blago bragging about what he wants and why he can't get it from so and so. We don't have evidence of 2 people AGREEING to do anything. There are all kinds of flimsy promises but nothing to hang an indictement on.
Anyway, a couple of good lawyers can easily get him off. His career as a politician is shot as it should be, but this case is pretty flimsy in legal terms.
You're probably right. I'm sure Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor who won convictions against a governor and a Vice President's chief of staff, probably laid out all the evidence in the pres conference following an arrest that followed a multi-year investigation. I mean, why wait for the trial when you can just let the media decide, right? Move along, there's nothing more to see here except that the best prosecutor in the country just screwed the pooch.
Puh-leeze. The man knows how to do his job.
A prosecutor doesn't prove, and doesn't have to prove (and never does prove) his case in the indictment. A prosecutor proves his case at trial. An indictment only has to show the defendant and the world what the case is about.
You know I thought of that. I am a Farmer's Daughter afficianado. I never liked Mr. Smith goes to Washington because it was simplistic in theme, written for a third grader and I read some history on it. I do not reveal this often because you can lose your citizenship making such remarks. But in Smith, he gets the appointment really through a political payoff.
Jackson was a 'winner take all kind of jerk', to the victor belongs the spoils. And the most corrupt politicians of all, Chester Arthur signed the legislation that supposed stopped this kind of stuff but really applied only to civil service.
Of course, it is not what you do, it is how you do it and this act and many other acts of this prick are felonies.
And someday I am going to learn how to spell afficianado.
When Democrats give up the idea that only Republicans can produce corrupt felons, we will have a lot better chance of getting the policies we want!
If Person A has the right to name someone to fill a Senate seat and talks about what Person B, Person C or Person D is or is not willing to pay for said Senate seat, it's good evidence, although not conclusive, that Person A was offering to sell, or soliciting offers to buy, said Senate seat, and that, I believe, is a crime.
Um, sorry. But he's guilty of trying to sell a Senate seat.
December 14, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a pretty poorly written blog.
"I-Blagojevich is really accused of doing nothing outside of merely JUST plotting to do something. " This is called conspiracy. Conspiracy to sell a senate seat I believe would be a prosecutable crime.
"II- Even if Blagojevich was actually caught DOING something, that is actually accepting favors for Obama’s Senate seat, although that would be illegal, it would not be in its essence outside of the norm of what politicians do routinely." So, uh... assuming the assumption that 'it wouldnot be in its essence outside of the norm of what politicians do routinely' is correct, that would supercede all legal statutes?
"this is a President-Elect managing a scandal when he wants us to focus on his appointees and his program for the nation". This sounds so ridiculous. What scandal is BHO managing? He's not implicated. It's not his scandal. I think Hrebendorf said it best here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/admiralmpj/2008/12/the-motherf-reponsible.php#comment-3313979
December 14, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a former member of a Federal Grand Jury for three years, I can say that the conspiracy charge is valid. We indicted several unsavory people on conspiracy to commit an act, even when there wasn't enough evidence to get a true bill on the act, itself, in some cases.
Unfortunately, an indictment is not a conviction; this is why we have courts of law. But the stigma of an indictment, IMO, never goes away.
December 14, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miguelitoh2o, not sure if you're a lawyer or if you are at all familiar with the law in the state of illinois, but I think what the blog writer is making is a legal case. Blagojevitch talked about doing something illegal. HE DIDN'T DO IT. I wish his lawyer luck in court trying to get a conviction on that basis.
II- I think the essence of this point is that all politicians do favors for a reason. Whether it is right or not is not really relevant to the argument here. This has to do with the legality of the matter. So yes if Blago was caught with a bag of money for Obama's seat, that would be illegal, but that would be the exact same thing done differently by other politicians.
Obama was managing this crisis. In politics it's called: "noise"; whether it is something of your own creation or not, whether it is directly related to your activities or not does not matter. If it impedes your message, you need to manage it. That's what Obama has been doing.
December 14, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generally speaking, when a defendant hires a lawyer, he wants him to prevent a conviction.
And no, the person who wrote the blog you link to doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony. In a federal case, the prosecution is only required to show that more than one person agreed to commit a federal crime in the future. Unlike some states, federal law does not require evidence of any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994).
Blago's F-bombed.
December 14, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you're right. I meant to say: "I wish the prosecutor luck in trying to get a conviction on that basis"
But this statement you made makes my point for me:
"In a federal case, the prosecution is only required to show that more than one person agreed to commit a federal crime in the future."
Right.
None of those phone calls that have been released prove that, unless Fitzgerald has something else in his back pocket. But all we have is Blago bragging about what he wants and why he can't get it from so and so. We don't have evidence of 2 people AGREEING to do anything. There are all kinds of flimsy promises but nothing to hang an indictement on.
Anyway, a couple of good lawyers can easily get him off. His career as a politician is shot as it should be, but this case is pretty flimsy in legal terms.
December 14, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right. I'm sure Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor who won convictions against a governor and a Vice President's chief of staff, probably laid out all the evidence in the pres conference following an arrest that followed a multi-year investigation. I mean, why wait for the trial when you can just let the media decide, right? Move along, there's nothing more to see here except that the best prosecutor in the country just screwed the pooch.
Puh-leeze. The man knows how to do his job.
December 14, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
A prosecutor doesn't prove, and doesn't have to prove (and never does prove) his case in the indictment. A prosecutor proves his case at trial. An indictment only has to show the defendant and the world what the case is about.
December 15, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know I thought of that. I am a Farmer's Daughter afficianado. I never liked Mr. Smith goes to Washington because it was simplistic in theme, written for a third grader and I read some history on it. I do not reveal this often because you can lose your citizenship making such remarks. But in Smith, he gets the appointment really through a political payoff.
Jackson was a 'winner take all kind of jerk', to the victor belongs the spoils. And the most corrupt politicians of all, Chester Arthur signed the legislation that supposed stopped this kind of stuff but really applied only to civil service.
Of course, it is not what you do, it is how you do it and this act and many other acts of this prick are felonies.
And someday I am going to learn how to spell afficianado.
December 14, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Democrats give up the idea that only Republicans can produce corrupt felons, we will have a lot better chance of getting the policies we want!
December 14, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Person A has the right to name someone to fill a Senate seat and talks about what Person B, Person C or Person D is or is not willing to pay for said Senate seat, it's good evidence, although not conclusive, that Person A was offering to sell, or soliciting offers to buy, said Senate seat, and that, I believe, is a crime.
December 14, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink