Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We'll Soon Know If Obama Can Put This Behind Him For Good.... LINK

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 11:01 PM
Original message
We'll Soon Know If Obama Can Put This Behind Him For Good.... LINK


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-tony-rezko-rulingfeb15,1,1992889.story

"Judge rejects bid by Tony Rezko to delay fraud trial"

By Jeff Coen | Tribune reporter
February 15, 2008


"Lawyers for Antoin "Tony" Rezko lost a bid Thursday to postpone the politically connected businessman's upcoming fraud trial because of media reports about the case.

U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve denied the defense request to delay the March 3 trial because of pretrial publicity, court records show.

Rezko's lawyers filed the request under seal, and St. Eve handled the matter Thursday in a brief hearing that began behind closed doors in her chambers and was not publicly announced in advance.

Rezko's attorneys had no comment following the hearing.

Also Thursday, St. Eve declined to bar the testimony of the government's key witness, Stuart Levine, who pleaded guilty to scheming with Rezko to extort investment firms seeking state business. Levine has alleged that Rezko, a former adviser and fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich, plotted with him to solicit millions of dollars in illegal payments and campaign contributions."

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nice to see you...
... would like to hear from JRE.

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Don't ya love DEFCON?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I don't mind it. I just feel for the mods and admins. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I am obviously 'out of the loop' regarding JRE because...
all the people who are in a position to know what is going on are not talking.

Very strange IMHO.

So how are things with you? Are there any Waxman developments coming up of interest?

I really want our Democratic Nominee to do well in the general election, but I am having a hard time seeing them through rose colored glasses. Both have their flaws and will be subjected to a withering attack in the general election if they are the Nominee.

You might want to keep an eye on the Rezko trial. Because of the voluminous discovery documents and the compacted trial schedule there could be some real fireworks there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Your flare in the dark on this issue lit up the night, and arrested my attention immediately.
Edited on Wed Feb-20-08 12:55 AM by CorpGovActivist
I assume the case has been drawn to a judge already? Friend or foe, Democrat-wise?

On a lighter note, earlier tonight a defeated Hillary supporter spat that Obama might win, and then have to give up before the convention.

My reply, paraphrased: "Good, he can turn over his delegates to Edwards."

:toast:

- Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. This Democratic Race for the Nomination is marked by two worrisome characteristics...
There is no doubt that McCain will be the Repub Nominee. And the Democratic Nomination 'seems' to have come down to Obama and Clinton.

So why is there not more early 'bashing' of the Democratic Candidates with 'dirt' to blunt turnout of voters in the primaries? Regardless of who becomes the nominee, the huge turnouts in the primaries and caucuses is energizing the Democratic base and in which in turn will bring those voters out in the general election.

I have believed for a long time that Republicans have been hoping to run against Clinton to energize and unite a fractured Republican base. And if that is the case there are steps they could be taking to help that happen. However I do not see that happening.

Consider this nightmare scenario: Obama appears headed toward a win at the Democratic Convention and something 'significant' in Obama's background comes to light and 'blows him out of the water.' Voila, Hillary becomes the Repub's choice Democratic Nominee AND so many new and energized voters are devastated, disgusted, and disillusioned to the extent that choose to not vote in the general election.

Maybe nothing... but it has me concerned.

I do not know much about the Judge in the Rezko fraud case. It is not surprising that 1.5 mil docs were dropped on defense counsel before trial with inadequate time to review and prepare before trial begins. However, in such a high profile case, it creates an almost automatic basis for appeal. 'Trials by ambush' are not favored by appellate courts. So why is the Judge insistent on 'pushing' this case to trial --even if the perfunctory delays have been used up by Defense Counsel? There is something significant in these docs that someone wants made public, now and not later. We will see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monomach Donating Member (619 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
6. Speaking as a lifelong resident of Illinois
Both the Sun-Times and the Tribune have tried everything they could to get Obama into this for a couple of years now, with no real success. It's much ado about nothing. Both papers have had to resort to printing things like "Oooooh, Obama's judgement is soooo bad because he knows Tony Rezko (we still haven't found anything Obama did for Rezko, but stay tuned)!"

No real wrongdoing? The whole thing is going to roll right off his back.

Interesting sidenote: the judge in the case worked for Kenneth Starr on Whitewater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Ugh. "Interesting" isn't the adjective I'd use there for that "sidenote," frankly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livvy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
9. Info on St. Eve....
From the '07 article...

The Black case won't even rate as the biggest media circus of her still-young career. In 1994, after four years of working for a big New York firm, St. Eve joined Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation, working as an associate independent counsel in Little Rock, Ark. Although she left the office in mid-1996 -- before Whitewater became more about cigars and blue dresses than corruption -- St. Eve did help secure fraud convictions against three of Bill Clinton's friends: Jim Guy Tucker, and Jim and Susan McDougal. Starr, now the dean of Pepperdine University Law School in Malibu, Calif., declined a request for an interview. But in 2003, he told the Chicago Tribune Magazine that St. Eve was a "superb lawyer, wise beyond her years" who would "lead and guide lawyers more senior than herself, including yours truly." More importantly, said the former prosecutor, "the jury in Little Rock adored her, and they trusted her."(Starr should know. In 1999, St. Eve returned to Little Rock to testify for him after Susan McDougal alleged that his office had pressured her to tell lies about Bill and Hillary Clinton. The jury didn't buy McDougal's story.)
After Whitewater, St. Eve took a job in Chicago as an assistant U.S. attorney, spending more than four years prosecuting everything from murders to state government scandals. "She's very smart, highly organized and very prolific," says Scott Lassar, then her boss, now a partner at a prominent Chicago firm. "She was a superstar."
Others share that opinion. In the spring of 2001, St. Eve left the U.S. attorney's office to take a high-profile gig as a corporate litigator for pharma giant Abbott Laboratories. Less than a year later, at the tender age of 36, she was appointed to the federal bench. Peter G. Fitzgerald, the U.S. senator who picked both St. Eve and Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Black case, for their jobs, recalls that her application just "leapt out" from the pile.(Black's prosecutor became U.S. attorney six months after St. Eve's departure from the office.)In a formal job interview at the dining room table of his Chicago home, St. Eve was even more impressive, says Fitzgerald, who returned to private life in 2005. "She knocked the ball out of the park. Very articulate, very quick, very impressive." At her confirmation hearing in April 2002, St. Eve sent an even clearer message that she was a gamer -- carting along her then six-week-old son, Brett, to Capitol Hill. She sailed through with the blessings of both parties.
Just five years on, there is already speculation that Judge St. Eve may be on track to bigger and better things -- a seat on the Court of Appeals, or perhaps, someday, the U.S. Supreme Court. She has become a familiar figure in the national press, presiding over a number of high-profile cases. In 2005, she ruled in favour of a "Hooter's Girl" who claimed sexual harassment by managers and co-workers who commented on her breasts and asked her out, upholding a jury's $250,000 damages award. There's the ongoing saga of Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a pizza mogul and Democratic fundraiser who is facing charges of soliciting kickbacks and campaign donations from companies bidding on state contracts. There were also the cases of Mohammed Salah and Abdel-Haleem Ashqar, two Palestinian activists facing charges of funnelling money to Hamas. Judge St. Eve raised the ire of Muslim groups when she admitted an allegedly coerced confession, which Saleh gave while in Israeli custody in 1993, into evidence. The pair were recently acquitted of terrorism and racketeering charges, but found guilty of obstruction.(It's hard to say if it's a good omen for Conrad Black, but Fitzgerald was the prosecutor on that file, too.)



http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070312_103134_103134
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC