Patterico's Pontifications

6/27/2011

Breaking: Blagojevich Convicted

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 12:20 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

The Other McCain reports that he has been convicted on 17 counts.  The links he has aren’t working for me, but when I can get some details, I will provide them.

Update: Now the link is working.  Here’s a few paragraphs, as a taste:

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was found guilty Monday of 17 out of 20 federal corruption charges — including all charges tied to allegations that the Chicago Democrat tried to trade an appointment to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.

Blagojevich had his hands clasped as he listened to the guilty verdicts read aloud in court, then leaned back into his chair as he heard all the guilty determinations.

His wife, Patti Blagojevich, began crying before the verdicts were even read. As each “guilty” was read, she sank into her brother’s shoulder.

Read the whole thing.

Update: For those keeping track, that means he was found not guilty of one count, and the jury was hung on two other counts.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

33 Responses to “Breaking: Blagojevich Convicted”

  1. The facts of the crimes did not change, but the government’s prosecution was cleaner and more streamlined this time than the case they presented in the first trial. Also, FWIW, Blago himself testified this time.

    elissa (5e485d)

  2. He will have another seat to sell, soon.

    Al K.Hall (e41aee)

  3. Soon to be known as “Joliet” Rod…

    Bigfoot (8096f2)

  4. it’s not any one person it’s the culture of corruption I think

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  5. It is racist to even question whether or not Barcky, or Valerie, or Rahmbo, or Rep jackson were aware of this.

    JD (d48c3b)

  6. He will have another seat to sell, soon.

    Comment by Al K.Hall —

    ZING.

    At any rate, pretty amazing that this doesn’t really touch Obama’s administration in the MSM’s coverage. This scandal is 1000X worse than the Weiner one.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  7. Yes it is.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  8. mmm, will jon edwards be his cell mate? and will the prison have enough hair product for both of them?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  9. I just hope his cellmate likes Elvis tunes.

    elissa (5e485d)

  10. I can’t seem to find it on YouTube, but I assume there is video of Obama endorsing Blagojevich’s 2006 reelection bid. If I recall correctly, when asked then about his own Presidential aspirations Obama replied something along the lines of “the most important thing to me right now is to reelect Rod Blagojevich as governor.” I would hope the RNC would find that video and feature it prominently in a commercial.

    JVW (24ee9a)

  11. Typical corrupt Republican, trying to help out other conservatives after a tea party senator moved on to another job. This is exactly the culture of corruption that Democrats solved during their time running our nation- if only they controlled every aspect of our lives we’d never hear about stories like this anymore!

    A Conservative Teacher (3a8d4b)

  12. Democrats should never be convicted of anything, they are the only ones who represent the little guy. Ony Republicans should go to jail like George Ryan. This is an outrage and a political hit job.

    BT (74cbec)

  13. Justice is served.

    The problem with one party rule in any decent size organization is rampant corruption: Democrats in Illinois are a perfect example.

    Two parties, sans filibuster, equals good governance

    timb (449046)

  14. Will

    Obama

    Pardon

    If he loses next November?

    EricPWJohnson (2925ff)

  15. I don’t know what this has to do with a filibuster, but I do agree with you timb. This is a good thing for Democrats and Republicans.

    I think a filibuster is a great tool for slowing down government change, which is, in and of itself, a wonderful thing. Make it difficult enough to do something, that things are only done if support for that thing is strong. More than 51% if the thing is controversial.

    I wish filibusters were more of the Mr Smith version, where a man has to put himself out there and expel great personal effort. That way, it would be less of a procedural hurdle, and more of a conscience driven aspect of government.

    Anyway, this guy was a crook with his power, so we all should be happy to see him face justice, but as you note, it’s the culture of Chicago that was the real culprit, and I worry we’re not getting all the corruption.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  16. she sank into her brother’s shoulder every time they said guilty? Is there a video? How does that not look weird?

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  17. Dustin, it’s a minor point. Certainly, here in Indiana this last session as the religious nuts (we’ll agree to disagree) ran crazy with women’s uteruses and those scary illegal immigrants and ignored income gaps and regressive taxation and the fact that all our smartest kids leave (explains why I’m still here), I would have loved a filibuster.

    But, call me old-fashioned, elections mean something, both at the Federal level and the State level, and if the public doesn’t like it the public can vote the bums out. The easy Federal filibuster bothered me in 2005 and it really bothered me in 2009. It actually prevents judges from getting approved, which means my Courts doesn’t work fast and annoys me. So, I’m for doing away with it.

    Still, the other part is true: one party states and cities are corrupt, be they Republican or Democrat and we’d all be better served by more competition in local elections. You shouldn’t have to have a governor selling Senate seats to have a chance to elect a Republican in Illinois.

    By the way, as a corollary, see Rahm Emmanuel, carpetbagger, or Haley Barbour, corporate shill. One party dominance helps no interested citizen

    timb (449046)

  18. hf, someone at PW called you a “liberal”!?! WTF? Isn’t any deviation from Orthodoxy allowed anymore.

    Tell him for me that, as a liberal, I wouldn’t let you anything I believed in!

    timb (449046)

  19. But, call me old-fashioned, elections mean something, both at the Federal level and the State level, and if the public doesn’t like it the public can vote the bums out.

    Obviously this is a sound principle. I deviate from it only in wanting to place restrictions on majority rule. I do not think ‘vote the bums out later’ is enough protection. And think about just how entrenched some actions can become before that’s even possible!

    This is ultimately the core of our different philosophies.

    Similarly, though, I would place some kind of restriction on filibustering. Such as having to personally hold up legislation, Mr Smith style.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  20. Well either Blago or Fitzpatrick is batting .850 in this trial.

    Mike Myers (0e06a9)

  21. Jail in this country, I’m sure is rough. I just watched “The Midnight Express” last night. WOW ! What a movie. In a word, AWESOME!

    Hydrous silica=silica spheres (4de175)

  22. The old-fashioned filibuster is still available, but the majority has to be willing to sit for it, and postpone all other business while it’s going on. Which it usually doesn’t want to do, so once it’s established that the minority is willing and able to filibuster the majority accepts the situation, and by mutual agreement both parties can move on to other business on which they’re not in such violent disagreement. It’s like Ford Prefect’s proposal to the bulldozer driver:

    “Has Mr Dent come to his senses yet?”

    “Can we for the moment,” called Ford, “assume that he hasn’t?”

    “Well?” sighed Mr Prosser.

    “And can we also assume,” said Ford, “that he’s going to be staying here all day?”

    “So?”

    “So all your men are going to be standing around all day doing nothing?”

    “Could be, could be …”

    “Well, if you’re resigned to doing that anyway, you don’t actually need him to lie here all the time do you?”

    “What?”

    “You don’t,” said Ford patiently, “actually need him here.”

    Mr Prosser thought about this.

    “Well no, not as such…”, he said, “not exactly need …” Prosser was worried. He thought that one of them wasn’t making a lot of sense.

    Ford said, “So if you would just like to take it as read that he’s actually here, then he and I could slip off down to the pub for half an hour. How does that sound?”

    Mr Prosser thought it sounded perfectly potty.

    “That sounds perfectly reasonable,” he said in a reassuring tone of voice, wondering who he was trying to reassure.

    “And if you want to pop off for a quick one yourself later on,” said Ford, “we can always cover up for you in return.”

    Except that in this case they come to the much more sensible arrangement of both popping off for a quick one together, so they can keep an eye on each other. Every so often they test the majority’s continued insistence on voting, and the minority’s continued willingness to block a vote, and then go back to the rest of the agenda, or off to bed; no use wasting all their time in a futile confrontation.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  23. Mr. tim I’m staunch staunch staunch as a little pikachu can be but you know there’s always someone what thinks they’re stauncher and when that happens I just sing me a little song

    freedom’s just another word for stuff liberals like to rape

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  24. colonel wonder is
    there such a thing as Muppet
    Protection Program?

    ColonelHaiku (eb5392)

  25. freedom’s just another word for stuff liberals like to rape

    See, that’s the crazy jerk I used to loathe!

    Besides, this whole reasonable thing you got going is really interesting to me. It’s like you take reason and knowledge more seriously than emotion. If it’s okay, we can just go ahead and think each other is nuts and marvel at the kind of people who think I am not “left” enough (firebaggers) and a not right enough (MMA fanatics and devotees of Michelle “I am just like John Wayne Gacy” Bachman?*

    *Seriously, what sort of “classical liberalism” embraces that woman’s theocratic worldview?

    timb (8f04c0)

  26. Bribery, requires too parts, those who solicit the bribe, and those who accept, where is the other party in this, and who doesn’t recognize
    the Janis Joplin allusion, in pikachu’s query.

    ian cormac (72470d)

  27. Well said, Ian.

    There were two sides to this bribery case. This case shouldn’t be closed.

    Though I worry it is. I mean, Issa’s got his hands full with a tiny fraction of Obama’s administration’s behavior. I don’t think 100 committees could get to everything.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  28. Did you read the Post’s ridiculous op ed on “Fast and Furious’ they blame the NRA and the GOP, they
    are making Iowahawk’s job too easy.

    ian cormac (72470d)

  29. Which it usually doesn’t want to do, so once it’s established that the minority is willing and able to filibuster the majority accepts the situation, and by mutual agreement both parties can move on to other business on which they’re not in such violent disagreement.

    But that itself plays into the dynamics of a filibuster. If Senator X knows that he’ll actually have to stay in the Senate chamber for hours on end, no bathroom breaks allowed, Senator X wouldn’t sign onto a filibuster so casually. methinks. He’d wait to use it for the important stuff, when it really is worth having no bathroom breaks. As it is now, the filibuster is simply a means to ensure that every piece of business in the Senate needs a supermajority. If you want a supermajority for every piece of business in the Senate, then put it into the Constitution.

    And there’s also the procedure by which one Senator can put a hold on anything. Such holds have a place, but I’d require a minimum number of Senators to have a valid hold–say, five or (my preference) ten–and have a time limit on the hold. If even a small group of senators puts a hold on something, then you know there are legitimate questions to be asked about it–but then the Senate needs to be able to actually decide the question. As it stands now, holds can be merely an expression of personal Senatorial pique.

    JBS (827a72)

  30. ian, that really was an insane article.

    I’m still amazed they were trying to blame Issa.

    We’re living in pivotal times, and both sides know it.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  31. And there’s also the procedure by which one Senator can put a hold on anything. Such holds have a place, but I’d require a minimum number of Senators to have a valid hold–say, five or (my preference) ten–and have a time limit on the hold.

    Hey, if you follow the rules nobody can hold up anything. It’s only when you seek unanimous consent to do something that’s against the rules that you give every senator the power to withhold that consent. That’s kind of the point of having rules; if anyone objects to your breaking them, you can’t. Unless you have a majority for suspending or changing them, of course, in which case you’re welcome to do so and nobody can stop you.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  32. I haven’t heard any commentary yet that hits the mark on this one.

    The problem is not that we had a corrupt politician. The problem is that Illinois ELECTED a corrupt politician when they should have known better.

    This will be repeated over and over again until the right problem is addresed.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  33. I’d like a detailed, honest, step-by-step description of exactly how this clown came to be Governor of Illinois and filler of a senate seat. I’d like the voters to be educated on how he ended up on the ballot and confronted on how they put him in office.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2758 secs.