I would like to know if anyone has actually read the 75 pages of blather

[trollybob]

attached to the criminal complaint against Rod Blagojevich and found it to be anything other than hearsay and conclusions of the F.B.I., which, even if true, prove that he somehow committed a crime, and does not just show some typical politician blowing smoke. Please tell me the U.S. Attorney isn't just full of shit when he says Blagojevich tried to "sell" the vacated Obama senate seat.

[babylonsister]

1. You obviously don't know about Fitzgerald.

Look him up; very instructive.

[trollybob]

13. All I know is that he's some 'holier than thou' prosecutor who wants to put everyone

in prison for everything. I don't know. There's such a long list of 'dangerous' criminals - Tommy Chong, Martha Stewart, Daryl Strawberry, etc.

[LostinVA]

44. Exactly -- you don't know anything about him

[annabanana]

64. Getcherself a little background reading done before you embarass yourself

any further.

[Two Americas]

120. agreed

The feds have been so clearly and obviously been running pr campaigns and show trials against scapegoats. Amazing that people keep lapping this stuff up.

Now we will hear "you are defending the sleazebag!!"

[Two Americas]

132. good point

The Bush justice department well knows that if they carry on a propaganda campaign to convince the public of what a bad person the target is, that people will overlook the behavior of the authorities, and they can take down anyone they choose to take down.

Taking down scape goats is a way to limit the investigation, and to cover up or distract from larger crimes, and a way to punish and intimidate political enemies. I believe that the Bush administration is guilty of engaging in a consistent pattern of abusing authority and using the justice department to do exactly that - advance political agendas and cover up larger crimes.

This is all too pat, all too airtight and simplistic, including the talking points being used to defend the Bush administration and distract people by trying to get us to focus on what a sleazebag the accused is.

Something smells very fishy.

I am certain that if the same prosecutorial zeal and the same resources were aimed at the justice department itself, then we would see some real crimes that were much more serious than the charges involved in this case.

Yep those fearless feds finally tracked down some corruption, and surprise! - turns out it was Democrats, and wonder of wonders, it turns out that it is associated with the president elect! All is well. Nothing to see. Move along now. Pay no attention to the "tinfoil brigade."

[ShortnFiery]

169. Fitz is serving his masters within the BushBotBorg.

In essence, he reminds me of the "Neidermyer" character in the flick Animal House. Fitz is a devout Catholic but IMO, not high or connected enough to be a true player within Opus Dei. He's squeaky CLEAN with regard to his private life behavior but DEVOTED to an authoritarian government. :scared:

[tabatha]

2. Taped conversations = hearsay ???

[trollybob]

6. I'm talking about statements in the affidavit that 'person A said that person B said that

Governor C said this or that. At times it sounds like some high school girl talking about what she heard in the hall.

[Missy Vixen]

10. If you knew the first thing about Patrick Fitzgerald

you would know that those not currently being indicted are not named in his criminal complaints.

Look it up.

Julie

[trollybob]

20. You miss the point.

[onenote]

43. actually, it sounds like a description of what someone heard on a taped conversation

How would you suggest taped conversations be referred to in a complaint?

[Hamlette]

99. they have it on tape, its not hearsay

you can wait for the jury if you want but from what I've read (about half of it) they have him cold.

If you want to come up with a conspiracy/he's innocent until proven guilty/he's being railroaded argument your best one is he didn't actually take a bribe (as Pat Buchanon argued yesterday). But then of course, he's charged with conspiracy and it seems impossible to argue he was no engaged in a conspiracy to accept a bribe.

[eyesroll]

157. Technically, yes.

Hearsay is a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Federal Rule of Evidence 801.

Doesn't mean it's inadmissible, though. Plenty of hearsay is.

[pinto]

3. The released transcripts of the wiretaps and Fitzgerald's briefing seemed a good indictment to me.

The Gov. will have his day in court.

[trollybob]

8. Thank you for your support of his right to due process.

[nemo137]

114. Due proess does not preculde people from forming opinions.

And, with Blago, this opinion was pretty well formed already.

[Ikonoklast]

4. Three years of investigation don't mean a thing, then.

I'm fairly certain they have eywitnesses other than federal agents more than willing to give testimony under oath that will corroborate whatever evidence they have.

I find it hard to believe that anyone is willing to defend him, but keep on doing it.

It's amusing.

[TheWraith]

5. For fuck's sake, people, they have AUDIOTAPED CONVERSATIONS.

They have the man on a freakin' wiretap LISTING the things he would take in payment for the Senate seat: Secretary of HHS, an ambassadorship, a high paying job for his wife, or about $1.5 million in campaign contributions.

[Posteritatis]

7. We're in "no mere facts will convince me" territory here

All some folks are going to see is the (D) attached to the guy's name and assume he can't have done anything as a result.

The disconnect between those guys and folks who actually live in Illinois and thus know about the guy is kind of hilarious, though.

[trollybob]

9. Yeah, it's funny how someone can get elected by an overwhelming majority

then all of a sudden he's a scumbag - Why, because the U.S. Atty. says so? Glad to know all of you people support the presumption of innocence and it's not just some meaningless bullshit phrase.

[Missy Vixen]

12. Yeah, that mean ol' US Attorney is just spoiling his fun

We all know that Patrick Fitzgerald wants to destroy a squeaky clean 20+ year career by charging somebody who was just minding his own business.

Robert Grant, head of the FBI in Chicago, was in the room, too. Got something to say to him?

Julie

[trollybob]

16. Yeah, I do. Why don't you go after some REAL criminals and stop

wasting taxpayers money. How much money do you think he spent investigating someone targeted by the adminstration for conducting politics as usual? And how many legislators could we indict for something or other if we tape-recorded their daily lives? And finally, what do you say we turn over your boss, President Assclown, to the International Criminal Court for his little escapade in Iraq?

[Missy Vixen]

19. Yawn

Hey Blago, is that you?

If you don't consider the charges announced today "real crimes", then I wonder about you. How much "money" he spent? If you knew anything (again,) about Patrick Fitzgerald and his career, you'd also know he doesn't waste taxpayer dollars.

Julie

[trollybob]

22. Mail Fraud? That's just one cut above "Racketeering". If he had a real case

he wouldn't have to attach 75 pages of F.B.I. bullshit to his complaint. How much of that do you really think is going to be admissible in court? I value your opinion, since you obviously work for the federal government.

[Missy Vixen]

30. Sorry, bob

I don't work for the Feds. I do comprehend what I read, though.

I find it interesting that the vast majority of those from Illinois are delirious with happiness over this, but you continue to argue poor Blago has been Framed. Are you from his defense team?

Julie

[Greyskye]

104. So how much money have you donated to his campaigns?

Must be quite a bit if you're in this much denial.

Have you read the Criminal Complaint? Here you go - get back to us with all of the nice legal things you find.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/081209_FINAL_complaint_cover_and_aff.pdf

[illuminaughty]

35. LOL great minds think alike, you stole my post! n/t

[Matariki]

88. Off topic: OMG I love your name!

;-)

[illuminaughty]

167. Thanks...and I still can't decide if they are

the mastermind Bilderberg "illuminati" or just your basic power grabbing sort, more like "illuminaughty" The way things have been going lately, I think I don't want to find out.:)

[Matariki]

178. Or perhaps - The Bavarian Illuminati Motorcycle Club

[blondeatlast]

42. I was going to post mush the same--the arrogance was what got me!

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

40. Scooter Libby wasn't a real criminal, then?

Wau.
:wow:

[onenote]

46. Rod, is that you?

Like the username. Kind of a dead giveaway though.

[Raskolnik]

53. Real criminals!? Blago is a REAL criminal.

It's clear you know nothing about this investigation, nothing about Blago, and nothing about Fitzgerald.

Don't let that stop you from posting about this, though.

[cali]

28. Many Illinois DUers have been saying for well over a year

that Blago is dirty. Some even state that they voted for his repug opponent in 2006 because of him.

[Raskolnik]

55. Most Dems in Illinois would have welcomed a moderate Republican over Blago

But the Illinois GOP is so unbelievably inept that it ran a formerly moderate woman (Topinka) and hitched her to a *very* socially conservative Lt. Governor candidate (Birkett), and proceeded to campaign on a platform of...well, nobody is really sure what their platform was.

If the GOP had run a moderate, reform-minded candidate in 2006, I probably would have voted for him/her.

[sohndrsmith]

37. you're confusing public opinion with legal conviction...

people are allowed (and free) to make assumptions, even personal judgments based on how they view events or situations, and sometimes people reach conclusions based on the info they've heard or read.

Does that mean that anyone has actually been legally convicted? No. It means that people have opinions and have every right to make a statement based on those opinions.

The Illinois governor is innocent until proven guilty... but he's in a mess of trouble either way. The events and statements (and documents) make it hard to think that anyone would not take this seriously and/or find it not only acceptable - but necessary - to pursue the findings further.

Also - being a jerk doesn't mean someone is a criminal... it seems pretty clear that, even if what the governor did isn't/wasn't illegal (I'm skeptical that they aren't) a lot of people seem to understand that he has not conducted himself to the standards of his office, and basically proved he is a pretty schkeevie moran, regardless of whether he is a criminal schkeevie moran.

87% of the population may think he's a jerk, but that won't cause him to serve time, it just means he's a jerk. We don't know the legal ramifications yet, so accusing anyone of that seems a bit premature, no?

[Political Heretic]

111. No jackass. Because the AUDIO TAPES SAY SO.

[screembloodymurder]

108. Tapes could mean absolutely nothing given the computer programs

our government now has. If ATT's acknowledged software was this good in 2001 ( http://www.robert-h-frank.com/PDFs/NYT.8.7.01.pdf ) what does our government have now? How soon before an entire case could be fabricated with bogus tapes? I'm not saying it was done, only that it may be possible.

[Raskolnik]

125. Or, the entire city of Chicago could be an elaborate hologram.

I'm not saying it was done, but that it may be possible.

[whippo]

11. The democratic process is often messy. Diverse constituencies fight fiercely for their priorities.

"Their elected representatives use the influence they have to meet those needs, including sometimes the exchange of favors - consideration for jobs being just one.

When a congressman responds to the president’s request for support for a judicial nominee or a trade deal by replying that he’d like the president’s backing for a new bridge in his district, he’s fighting for his constituents. If the money for that bridge is approved over a worthier project elsewhere, should the deal between the two officials become a crime?"

[trollybob]

14. Thank you.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

56. So. Where does one draw the line?

It is the backroom shenanigans the usurp the process of open government that is by and for the people.

[TexasObserver]

15. I don't put much confidence in anything any prosecutor says in such cases.

They all try to game the jury pools with their early press conferences and spins.

We will not know the truth for some time. We will know tidbits the Prosecutor releases because it's beneficial to him.

This governor may be dirty as charged, but he wasn't even talking about Obama's senate seat when they bugged him 8 weeks ago. That was 3 weeks before the election.

I don't believe the purpose of all this is to get the governor. It's to start a stink bomb and smell up as many Democrats from Illinois as possible. I'm not saying Fitzpatrick is in on the scheming. He's just a Boy Scout who does what he's told, and he doesn't see the big picture.

[deaniac21]

174. It's a conspiracy.

[Median Democrat]

17. The Complaint Is Filled With Quotes From Blago

Unless you are saying that the recordings are fraudulent, Blago pretty much talked himself into a jail sentence. His best defense would be that its not him.

[MilesColtrane]

153. Some people believe that no planes hit the WTC too.

Reality Impairment Disorder

[Occam Bandage]

18. Why is anyone bothering to respond to a guy whose name declares he's a troll?

[Mudoria]

21. I was wondering the same thing

[trollybob]

23. Trolling for some justice for everyone, (even you).

[Venceremos]

24. Yep

read the whole ugly 75 pages. Confirmed what those of us with a brain already knew - Blago is a crook. But don't worry, he'll get a fair trial before he takes up residence with George Ryan.

[trollybob]

33. Oh yeah, George Ryan, the guy that pissed off his fellow republicans

after he cleared out death row, so they had him indicted for some political crap that happened before they voted him in as governor, blaming him along the way for killing six kids.

[terrya]

54. You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

"some political crap that happened before they voted him in as governor, blaming him along the way for killing six kids".

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Raskolnik]

57. Some people are proudly ignorant, aren't they?

[LostinVA]

67. It's best to stop before you embarrass yourself further, Trolly

Oh wait -- it's too late!!!!

[Maru Kitteh]

25. Troll-y Bob

have another smoke.

[LostinVA]

49. Exactly -- look at all of his posts, too

[The_Casual_Observer]

26. I'm thinking the same thing. The Fitzgerald bit is wearing thin on me.

Who the fuck knows what the context of any of those conversations were anyway? Did any money ever change hands?

Fitzgerald grandstands the whole motherfucker, tries the guy in the press & wham-o Maddow
finds him guilty as charged.

[cali]

27. I don't think this is all about Fitzgerald.

Did you moan and groan about the unfairness of it all re Stevens? Ney? Cunningham? Abramoff?

What context excuses holding up funding for a Childrens' Hospital until you receive a donation from the Chairman of the Board?

[The_Casual_Observer]

29. Fitzgerald finds him guilty on account of wiretaps & it's all you need.

Fuck that. Where is the bank transfer from the hospital?
Fuck Fitzgerald, he was too chickenshit to touch Cheney, so this is the best he can do.

[Occam Bandage]

38. Solicitation of bribes is a crime. It does not require an actual bribe.

[terrya]

51. Again, exactly right.

He held up funding for a CHILDREN'S Hospital for his own personal gain.

I mean, how is that even slightly defensible?

[trollybob]

34. Not to mention having the balls to say that Lincoln would be

turning over in his grave. I'm sure if Fitzgerald were around in Lincoln's time he find something "appalling" about Abe's conduct, especially by 1860's standards.

[bridgit]

31. I'm quite sure its sitting on the night stands of many having already been read...

considered and in great detail. We heard 4-5 pgs on the radio just driving back home from up the hill, interesting stuff. But I write operational narratives for a living and sometimes they sound like stereo instructions so...I guess I'm easy :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

32. Where's the smiling toad gif?

:shrug:

[sohndrsmith]

36. I've read most of it. I wouldn't call it "blather", personally.

have you read the Justice Department briefing transcripts? They don't consider it "blowing smoke"...

Excerpt:

MR. FITZGERALD: "Well, you hit on two questions. One is a legal distinction. There is scheming or conspiracy to commit a crime and then there's a substantive crime. We've charged conspiracy or scheming in this complaint.*

"One of the things we want to do with this investigation is to track out the different schemes and conspiracies to find out which ones were carried out or not and who might be involved in that or not. And that's something we haven't done yet. Now that we've gone overt we'll be interviewing people and figuring that out.

"But it is a crime in and of itself for people to scheme to violate the law. That's called conspiracy." *

link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/us/politics/09text-illinois.html?pagewanted=11&sq=ROD%20BLAGOJEVICH&st=nyt&scp=1

So... it appears that blowing smoke may - in fact - be a crime, as it looks like there is a more formal term for it and whether is has been carried out or not is not the deciding factor as to legality. But it looks like this governor said this pretty far beyond the "just saying dumb things" criteria, no?

There are different charges, only one of which is the Senate seat issue...

* bold - my emphasis. No alteration to the content of the text excerpt as transcribed.

[kentuck]

39. It was a "preemtpive" arrest.

before he could actually commit the act of buying a Senator. It caught him "conspiring" inn different conversations to make money off his position. He is guilty of conspiracy to make money off his public position.

[onenote]

41. I don't think you know what hearsay means

the generally accepted definition of hearsay is: "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

The FBI agent statements describing what Blago and others said in the taped conversations are not hearsay because they are not offered to prove the truth of what Blago is saying, but rather to prove that Blago said it and the FBI declarant has knowledge of that because he heard it." Since legal pleadings are not audio files, they are written documents, the only way to assert that someone said something is to have someone who heard it say that they heard it.

[LostinVA]

45. Please look at the OP's DU name

And then his posts. He's outing himself as a troll, gang.

[terrya]

48. Yes.

Exactly right.

Blagojevich had approval ratings here in Illinois around 15% BEFORE this little episode. His scumbaggery was pretty well known before the TAPED comments were released.

[Marrah_G]

47. The amount of people defending this greedy, corrupt man is disturbing.

This man was trying to SELL one of our Dem seats in the Senate.

[LostinVA]

50. Many of the posts are from the OP

on this and other threads.

[Marrah_G]

58. Maybe it's just a handful yelling loudly

Between them and those who have already decided that Obama is now the corporate enemy of the Left I feel like I am in the twilight zone.

[LostinVA]

61. Seriously

Gov. Blag is scum. He's not even a GOOD corrupt poli -- he steals from sick kids. UGH.

[Raskolnik]

52. Obviously, you haven't bothered to read it. Do you know what "hearsay" is?

Taped phone conversations are not "hearsay."

[TexasObserver]

60. Wrong. They're hearsay, but an admission against one's interest is an exception to the hearsay rule.

A tape is clearly hearsay if it does not involve the defendant speaking, and even if it does, it is still hearsay, but can be admitted under one of several exceptions to the hearsay rule.

If the taped conversation does involve the defendant, it's still hearsay, but if (1) the evidence determines that the defendant himself is speaking, and (2) he says things on the tape that are admissions against his interest, and (3) he denies in court that he said such things, then (4) an exception to the hearsay rule allows admissibility of the tape, to refute his statements in court to the contrary. The tape can be used to impeach him or other witnesses, should they testify at variance with what they said on the tape. The tape only comes into evidence if the court allows it as an exception to the hearsay rule. There are other exceptions that might allow the tape into evidence, but it is hearsay.

If two people are talking, and one is not the defendant, that is rank hearsay, and is not admissible to prove the truth of the things asserted on the tape, unless there is another exception to the hearsay rule.

You just proved you do not know what hearsay is, and you do not know the exceptions to the hearsay rule. I see you've never tried a case and do not know the rules of evidence or procedure.

[Raskolnik]

63. You think the OP was referring to F.R.E. 801?

Because I don't. I was, admittedly, assuming that the OP was using a colloquial definition of "hearsay" and implying that the only allegations made in the complaint stemmed from others speaking of Blago's actions, as opposed to direct evidence of Blago's own actions. If I was mistaken, and the OP was speaking in the context of the the Federal Rules of Evidence, I will happily rephrase my response.

By the way, T.O.--have you bothered to read *anything* about this case yet, or are you still proudly posting without even a basic knowledge of Blago, the investigation, or Illinois politics?

[TexasObserver]

65. It doesn't matter what the OP was referring to. It's still hearsay.

Will the prosecutors likely be able to get the tape into evidence as an exception or exemption to the rule? Sure. Will the tape likely come into evidence for some purpose? Absolutely.

But it's still hearsay.

As for the case, I've read extensively regarding the allegations. As I've noted in other posts, if they're accurate, if they're true, if they can be imputed to the governor, he's going away for a long, long time unless he agrees to roll on others.

The fact that the governor is likely dirty does not change that this is a politically driven investigation. This case is driven not by the prosecutors, but by the federal FBI task force whose job it has been to investigate Democrats in Illinois the past two years. This is how the Bush crime family operates. They use the FBI as their goon squad, to go after Democrats.

If there is one thing of which I am certain it is this: Any politician you can tape 24/7 will eventually do or say something that is or can be a crime.

I'm not saying this governor is not a scumbag. He appears to be one. But the government appears to have pursued him for three years, but didn't put a tap on his phone until three weeks before the election. Now, why would they wait that long, and why do it then? Are we to believe it wasn't until they had tape regarding the appointment for Obama's successor that they decided to move on the governor? If that was true, why were they tapping him three weeks before the election?

I have concluded that the objective evidence indicates the FBI - the BUSH FBI - was trying to get dirt on Obama for use in the election first and foremost, and secondly, to get evidence of any deal that might be effected for the appointment to the senate. They struck out on the first part and hit a home run on the second part.

"Was the investigation politically motivated?" is a different question than "is the governor likely guilty of trying to sell the seat?"

[Raskolnik]

66. And the only "evidence" you have that this investigation was politically motivated

is your own lack of knowledge.

Fitzgerald has been prosecuting corruption in Illinois for the last several years, both Republican and Democrat. He investigated, tried, and got a conviction for REPUBLICAN George Ryan. He was a major thorn in the administration's side in the Plame investigation. It simply is not credible to assert without evidence that the Bush administration pressured Fitzgerald to investigate Blago in the absence of evidence *at the same time* Fitzgerald was investigating high ranking Bush administration officials. That may fit your wish list, but it doesn't fit with the known facts.

This investigation of Blago has been public knowledge in Illinois for several years, and no one, not a single person, has presented any evidence that it was politically motivated during that span. Between Blago, Rezko, Daley, and a host of other state and city officials, this state has a culture of corruption that is just staggering.

If you want to argue that Bush has damaged the DoJ, you'll get no resistance from me. But your knee-jerk reaction to this investigation is just lazy thinking.

[TexasObserver]

68. So that's your response to my proving you don't know the rules of evidence?

I said GOOD DAY, SIR!

[Raskolnik]

70. I provided my response, and you just ignored it.

All I can do is lead you to water. If you refuse to drink, that's your own fault.

If your refuse to educate yourself about the facts of this case, I don't know why you are continuing to post about it. It does not reflect well upon you.

[TexasObserver]

133. You've exhausted your knowledge, and I've found it lacking.

I'm familiar with the alleged facts, but I'm not clueless as to the legal and political issues involved, as you are. You need to play with amateurs, who can't recognize the depth of your ignorance.

I realize that slinging childish insults and nagging are your "go-to" moves, but I've raised children, so I'm not impressed with such.

You should hold your breath next. That might work.

[Raskolnik]

136. You're neither familiar with the facts of this investigation nor willing to learn even the basics

you've demonstrated that quite clearly since yesterday.

You reached a conclusion that this was a politically motivated investigation without bothering to find out the first thing about Governor Blagojevich, Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation in Illinois, or Illinois politics in general.

Ignorance is understandable, but willful ignorance in the face of easily-accessible evidence that contradicts your presmises is not acceptable.

[TexasObserver]

139. Hearsay is all you know about the case. All of it. Hearsay.

You don't have one iota of knowledge that isn't hearsay.

[Raskolnik]

149. Oy vey. A tape of Blagojevich conspiring to sell the senate seat, to solicit bribes,

and to sell influence is not hearsay when he is charged with conspiracy.

If Blago is on tape saying "we are going to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder" and that tape is used as evidence that he sold the seat to the highest bidder? That is hearsay, likely subject to an exception. If that tape is used as evidence that he conspired to sell the seat to the highest bidder? That's not hearsay. If you are on tape saying "Blago and I conspired to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder," and that tape is used as evidence against Blago for conspiracy? That's hearsay.

If you still don't understand this, then, frankly, you should ask evidence professor for your money back.

There is plenty in this complaint that would qualify as hearsay and subject to an exception, but to assert there is nothing in this complaint that isn't hearsay demonstrates that you haven't even bothered to read the damn document.

And, frankly, the legal definitions of hearsay have nothing to do with your repeated and unsubstantiated contention that this was a politically motivated investigation. You are only arguing this because it keeps you from having actually learn the facts of this case the might contractict your assumptions.

[TexasObserver]

151. You've never tried a case to a jury, have you?

You still don't know what hearsay is, do you?

[Raskolnik]

155. You need to go back to your evidence professor and clear this up.

Do you understand the distinction between being a statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and a recording being used merely to prove that the statement was made?

I'll dumb it down a little further, in the hopes that it helps.

If I am on tape saying "The sky is purple," that is hearsay if it is being used to prove that the sky is purple.

If, however, the tape is used to demonstrate not that the sky is purple, but that I SAID the sky was purple, that is not hearsay.

Do you understand?

[TexasObserver]

159. Thirty years of trying cases, I understand the hearsay rules.

Every bit of information you have is something you heard someone say, or something you read which someone else wrote. It's all hearsay to you, because you have not received any evidence that isn't someone telling something someone else allegedly said, and done so to prove the thing asserted.

If you knew what hearsay is, we wouldn't have to have this conversation.

And nice dodge. That's twice you've refused to acknowledge you're not a trial lawyer and never have been.

[Raskolnik]

160. I'll give you credit: you don't let anything like "facts" or the "law" or "reality" change your

opinion.

Do you really not understand the difference between the two concepts I laid out for you? Really?

Honestly, next time you're in court, ask the lawyer sitting next to you to explain the difference between an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and and out-of-court statement being used to prove that the statement itself was made. This isn't complicated, I swear.

[onenote]

90. I don't think it is hearsay.

Because it wasn't included in the complaint to prove the truth of what Blago was saying but rather the fact that it was said. And essentially, the FBI agent swearing out the complaint is the one saying that it was said based on their first hand knowledge of what was on the tapes.

If joe the plumber is recorded saying "I gave a million dollars to joe the hitman to kill my wife", that statement would be hearsay if it was going to be used to prove that joe the plumber actually gave a million to joe the hitman. However, if all you were seeking to prove was that he said he paid a hitman, not that he did what he said, it wouldn't be hearsay for someone who heard a recording of the statement to assert that joe said it.

[Two Americas]

124. yep, that is the tactic

Just the convolutions needed by someone to explain this should make us suspicious. We have been seeing this same tactic by the feds under Bush again and again.

"Well we don't actually have any evidence of wrong doing, but he said he did something wrong" (or someone else says he said) or "he didn't cooperate with the investigation" or "he lied to the interrogators."

As Tommy Chong's attorney told him, "if the feds want to get you they will get you."

[Raskolnik]

126. You don't understand.

If you say to someone (under certain circumstances), "I will pay you $1,000 to murder my wife," you have DONE something wrong because of what you have SAID.

If the Governor of Illinois says to someone, "we won't release funding for your hospital unless you give me $50,000," he has DONE something wrong because of what he has SAID.

Do you understand?

[Two Americas]

129. yes

What we have been seeing with the Bush justice department, is that resources are selectively allocated for political purposes, and fishing expeditions are then undertaken against designated scape goats until some sort of trumped up (or dramatized and over-stated) case can be made. Then we have a big media circus, and officials hold press conferences and selectively leak information to a compliant media, all for the purpose of "selling" the public on their spin of the case. It is very expertly done.

[Raskolnik]

130. All of which is nothing but generalities that all signs indicate do not apply in this case.

But for some strange reason, you refuse to acknowledge this.

[Two Americas]

134. acknowledge what?

What is it that I am refusing to acknowledge?

[Raskolnik]

138. That all the facts indicate that your generalities do not apply to this investigation.

But that doesn't stop you from ignoring the specific facts of this case that don't fit your pre-conceived notions.

[Two Americas]

144. here is my point, no more, no less

People here are being too trusting and naive.

[onenote]

161. the only one I see being naieve and trusting is you

Naively thinking that blago is the victim here and trusting that he actually was a law abiding citizen.

[Two Americas]

165. never said that

This is amazing. I am not defending Blagovich, nor claiming that he is innocent. Yet again and again people keep refuting a point I am not making, and would not make.

As I have said several times, it could well be that he is guilty AND there is a politically motivated witch hunt going on.

[PVnRT]

115. So....when they took down Ryan, was that politically motivated, too?

[Raskolnik]

127. It was just a set-up, obviously.

The Bush DoJ knew that Obama would be elected President in 2008, so Fitzgerald was just laying the groundwork to create the *appearance* of fairness. Same thing with Libby.

It's the only thing that makes sense.

[PVnRT]

131. Man, these guys are GOOD

[Raskolnik]

135. If there's one thing the Bush administration is known for, it is competence and foresight.

[blondeatlast]

59. Welcome, Rod Blagovich's attorney, to DU! I read a lot of it on TSG--

sorry to say, your client didn't do himself any favors by being massively corrupt--and MASSIVELY arrogant--and dumber than a doornail stupid.

Good luck with that. I wish you well with that; it's gonna be fun to watch.

[dysfunctional press]

62. patti?...patti blagojevich?...is that you? again?

you're sure a busy little beaver today. :hi:

[ItNerd4life]

76. LOL. Somebody's been paying attention

to what's going on.

[gkhouston]

81. Nope. Nowhere near foul-mouthed enough.

on edit: The stupid is a nice fit, though.

[Two Americas]

69. I did

It is complete bullshit, and it is amazing how many here are siding with the cops (and Republicans) and swallowing this crap.

[Raskolnik]

71. Which part of the complaint is "bullshit?" n/t

[Two Americas]

72. the entire thing "n/t."

You asked, I answered.

[Raskolnik]

75. Ah, so you actually don't know anything about this case, do you?

What allegations don't ring true? What evidence do you think is false? What evidence do you think was gathered illegally? With what portion of the investigation do you take issue?

I don't think you can answer any of these questions, because you don't know what you're talking about.

[Two Americas]

84. nice try

The burden of proof is upon the government, and those defending the cops. That is a key and foundational principle of our theory of government.

Amazing that people calling for impeachment here were accused of denying Bush the presumption of innocence and due process, and are then turning around 180 degrees and defending the Bush administration in this case and when a person is actually arrested, presuming his guilt and demanding that people prove he is innocent or else fully accept and agree with and promote and defend the feds actions and words. In other words, a double standard is being applied, and this double standard - among Democrats! - favors the opposition. Can someone explain that one to me? I guess Bush has a better public relations machine working for him, and many Democrats cannot see that this is what is steering their thinking.

What are the crimes?

What are the charges?

He could very well be guilty of some crime AND the arrest and warrant and press conference could all be4 part of an organized, planned and intentional political move. Both could be - and probably are - true.

But we are being asked to see this as either he is not a really bad guy, or else the actions of the feds are not to be questioned. Now why would people want to present this issue that way, and whom is served by that?

[Raskolnik]

87. Jebus. You want to know the crimes? You want to know the charges? READ THE COMPLAINT

Seriously, you claim to have read the complaint and determined it to be "bullshit," but you don't even know what the alleged crimes are, or what the complaint charges? Unbelievable.

Go here and READ THE COMPLAINT, then come back and post: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/43789434.pdf

Blago should be presumed innocent in the court of law. That presumption of innocence does not lobotomize me and blind me to the ample evidence of his many, many transgressions.

[Two Americas]

91. asking you

I am asking you what you see as the crimes here. I am not necessarily saying that there are none. But what exactly do you get about it?

By the way, I edited my post after you posted - sorry.

[Raskolnik]

94. A non-exhaustive list of Blago's crimes:

(1) Attempting to literally sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. Literally. Sell.

(2) Conspiring to withold state funding for a sale of Wrigley Field unless Tribune editorial board members were fired.

(3) Conspiring to withold funding from Children's Memorial Hospital unless he received a cash payment.

(4) Consipiring to sell numerous political favors for cash payments.

(5) READ THE COMPLAINT: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/43789434.pdf

[Two Americas]

101. funny

90% pomp and circumstance and 10% evidence.

I guess the more words in the indictment, the more guilty the person accused must be.

Fund raising, political pressure and favors - I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

[Raskolnik]

103. I guess no amount of pleading will convince you actually learn about this case, will it?

If you're proud of your ignorance, that's too bad.

[Two Americas]

119. I am unconvinced

That is not a matter of ignorance, nor is it a defense of the governor.

[Erin Elizabeth]

140. Do you understand why it's wrong to SELL a Senate seat?

I mean, you literally sound as if you don't understand why that's wrong. And ILLEGAL.

Wow. I think little kids get that.

[Two Americas]

145. of course

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

The severity of the alleged crime is not a justification for suspicious actions by law enforcement.

[Erin Elizabeth]

148. Well, the guy is recorded on audiotape trying to

SELL A SENATE SEAT.

How do you not get this?

[Two Americas]

150. back to the distraction

Right. Look over here folks at what a sleazebag the guy is.

I am not trying to push a theory about this. The truth will come out here soon. I am betting that there is a lot more to the story, and that we are being herded and misled. We shall see. For now, it would be nice to see people apply little more critical thinking to this, and to be a little more skeptical. I think that has been successful.

[Erin Elizabeth]

156. I don't just swallow anything I hear.

I'm not a Republican. I'm a critical thinker. I've read all 75 pages of the documents, which includes the entire complaint and transcripts of all the audiotapes.

I guess you are related to him or something.

[Two Americas]

158. heh

"I guess you are related to him or something."

That must be some of that critical thinking you mentioned.

I am suggesting that the document you are poring over is itself the distraction.

[Political Heretic]

112. He's on tape. Soliciting bribes. I read the transcripts. That's a crime.

End of story.

[Two Americas]

128. maybe

Whether or not he is guilty of anything is not relevant to the timing and tactics of the (Bush administration) feds.

Are people here so naive to think that horse trading on appointments and legislation does not go on every day? I am not defending it or justifying it, but geez the shock and outrage here is something to behold.

Show trials, selective prosecutions, scape-goating and mass media campaigns by the Bush justice department is part of a politicized and corrupt ongoing law enforcement approach that is a far greater threat than anything this one guy is alleged to have done. The Bush people have raised this to the level of an art form - perfected it. I am surprised that people keep falling for it.

By taking one designated person down, the public is reassured that something is being done, that the problems are not so big, and they are distracted from the larger crimes going on.

[exman]

73. Thank you for this post

I needed to learn what has been posted in reply. As for "full of shit" imo this whole affair is sop for politicians, except for the rare occasion when an honest man actually gets elected. Personally, I take it as a given that this sort of thing is common, the only thing unusual is that Blago got caught.

[suston96]

74. Not sure about "bullshit" but......where is the quid pro quo?

Did money change hands? Why wasn't this a sting? As someone here suggested: an arrogant politician blowing smoke? Is that all that happened?

[Raskolnik]

78. It's far more than an arrogant politician blowing smoke.

Take a look at the complaint: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/43789434.pdf

[McCamy Taylor]

79. Sam Zell (R)'s Tribune is bankrupt. He needs $$$. He is courting buyers.

[Raskolnik]

82. Did you mean to post this to me?

I don't understand your point.

[onenote]

85. money doesn't have to change hands for there to be a crime. And, no it wasn't a "sting"

THe crimes with which Blago is charged include soliciting a bribe and conspiracy. You don't need money to change hands for those crimes any more than someone has to actually shoot someone to be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

And either you don't understand how the evidence was gathered or you don't understand what a "sting" is (unless you think that Obama gave up his Senate seat as part of a government operation to create an opportunity for Blago to try to sell the seat). The evidence was gathered through wiretaps, etc and there is no indication that anyone connected with the prosecutors approached Blago in an effort to get him to solicit a bribe or do anything else.

[Two Americas]

77. the man is guilty of four things

1. Having a potty mouth (that gets the Puritans and goody two shoes contingent on board)

2. Being insufficiently skilled in double-talk and suave and sophisticated language when doing the usual horse-trading that goes on every day with all politicians (that gets the gentrified scolders and hypocritical and aristocratic finger-waggers on board)

3. Saying a naughty word when referring to Obama's people (that gets the rest of the Dems onboard)

4. Being unpopular with the public in Illinois (that makes him an easy, convenient and popular target)

[Raskolnik]

80. Willful ignorance.

You're not from Chicago or Illinois, are you?

[Two Americas]

92. of what am I ignorant exactly?

I may be ignorant of something, but I can assure you that it is not willful.

What exactly am I poorly informed about?

[Political Heretic]

113. #2 gets him rightfully arrested.

The argument that "everyone's doing it so no one is guilty" doesn't hold any water with me.

I'm sorry that other politicians are more skilled and thus can conduct such business without getting arrested. But he wasn't. He broke the law. How do I know this? Because solicitation of bribes is a crime. You don't have to get the money, and he talked about it, in explicit terms, on tape.

Again, the argument that "everyone's doing it" means nothing to me.

[Two Americas]

137. not making that argument

Nor am I defending the guy.

[McCamy Taylor]

83. He is guilty of being associated with Obama. Let Whitewater II begin.

Fitz will go down in history as Ken Starr II.

[onenote]

86. You continue to be the leading comedian on this topic.

Not a good comedian, but a comedian nonetheless.

[Raskolnik]

89. This is one of the sillier posts among a bunch of very silly posts.

Congratulations, I guess.

[Erin Elizabeth]

141. Is it Opposite Day? Did I miss the announcement?

:crazy:

[TankLV]

170. I think your statement is in fact just the tip of the iceberg...

What people here don't seem to realize is that, you and the others are not trying to excuse what blago is ALLEGED to have done, and yes, these are TAPED conversations, etc., etc,...ad nauseum...

but what is simply amazing and astounding is that they refuse to ALSO "connect the dots" and read between the lines and see what is REALLY happening...

It's no longer remaining about what blago did or did not do or say - IT'S MORPHING - AND MORPHING QUICKLY - INTO TRYING TO CONNECT OBAMA TO THIS AND MIRE HIS - FUTURE - ADMINISTRATION IN ENDLESS INVESTIGATIONS AND BASELESS ACCUSATIONS, because, you know, we've "got to be carefull" and "make sure Obama is not involved in (topic dujour)..."

WAKE UP PEOPLE is all McCamy and the OP are trying to say!!!

And, I fear McCamy and the OP will be proved RIGHT on this...this is EXACTLY how Clinton's term in office began - EXACTLY...

[GoneOffShore]

93. I read the complaint.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, squawks like a duck.

Probably a troll though.

[Two Americas]

95. the media is just having all sorts of fun now

NPR is running a show about this - "gee I guess it is kinda sorta all the same, you know - Delay, Cunningham, Libby, and all of those charges by Democrats against Republicans, most of which didn't stick, I guess they are just all corrupt, and what can we do? All the same, all equal. They all do it. Nothing special or noteworthy about the Republicans recently - after all, not many were ever charged despite all of the frenetic screaming by those Bush-hating liberals."

"Yes, we all know that corruption happens, and now we have got a guy so I guess 'both sides do it' and this example - unlike what hundreds of Republicans have been doing for the last 8 years - is a really, really bad case."

We arrested a Democrat, so that handles the whole corruption thing now, and we can all move along.

Yep. Our hero Fitzgerald who-can-do-no-wrong has been investigating and investigating trying to get to the bottom of all of this government corruption stuff - he couldn't find very much no matter how hard he tried - but now finally all of that hard work has paid off - finally! Pay dirt! We found a dirty guy - you know, from that dirty corrupt Democratic party machine in Illinois! The machine that brought Obama into national prominence.

Get it folks? Just watch this play out now.

[Critters2]

96. This man has wreaked havoc on this state. Please stop defending him.

He needs to go to prison. The sooner the better.

[Two Americas]

97. not defending him

Why do people keep trying to frame this discussion that way?

[PVnRT]

117. Wait a second

You accuse anyone disagreeing with you of "siding with the cops," and you're bitching about someone using a frame? Give me a break.

[Two Americas]

122. both could be true

He could be a sleazebag, and this could be a political witch hunt.

Why do people keep insisting that we choose one or the other, and whom does that serve?

[TankLV]

171. Too many here just refuse to see the BIG PICTURE...

and this will be our downfall, sadly...

[Raskolnik]

98. Honestly, you need to educate yourself about the history of this investigation before continuing

to post nonsense like this.

It's not that tough. Go to the Chicago Tribune's website. Go to the Sun Times' website. Spend an hour there.

[Two Americas]

173. not defending him

I am familiar with the case, and I am not defending him.

[dysfunctional press]

100. you couldn't be more wrong.

blago is an idiot- and the stakes were so high that fitz knew that he had to move NOW!

and more power to him for doing so.

[Two Americas]

166. didn't say otherwise

I am neither defending Blagovich nor lionizing Fitzgerald. I am questioning this relentless pressure to choose one or the other.

[tjwash]

102. Waste of time...the DU lynch mob has tied his ass up, and is tossing the rope over the tree branch

Anyone who dares to point out that it just bothers them to see otherwise reasonable folks forget that even the worst among us is innocent until proven guilty, will be flamed for being an ignorant supporter of his that deserves to swing right next to him.

[Raskolnik]

105. The presumption of innocence afforded criminal defendants in a court of law does not require

people to lobotomize themselves and refuse to see the evidence in front of their faces.

[Two Americas]

147. right

But no one is arguing that, are they?

[tjwash]

163. Oh...I'm sorry...you are obviously either his attorney, or the federal attorney. My bad.

So, dazzle us with all of this "evidence" you have brought before the judge. :eyes:

:rofl:

[Raskolnik]

177. I have no idea what you are saying. n/t

[leftstreet]

146. Post of the day!

:thumbsup:

[tjwash]

164. Being from Cali, I have no leeway to talk shit about corrupt state politics, and fucked up governers

The silver lining to this whole fiasco, is that no one is pointing fingers at us and sneering at our state with derision right now.

[YvonneCa]

110. The media IS horrible. We should all stand up to...

...misinformation.

[Political Heretic]

116. None of this has anything to do with whether or not Bag committed a crime.

Which he did. It's on tape, and in the transcripts. You are making inferences into intent, or what will happen as a result of this, or what the "agenda" is. You could be right about all of that. You are certainly right about the fact that stuff like this goes on every day, and that most politicians are just skilled enough to exchange influence for favors without technically breaking the law or getting caught. But that doesn't change the single issue here - Bago was NOT skilled enough to do that, and GOT caught BREAKING the law - on tape.

Saying "its all bullshit" is bullshit. The evidence more than justifies the indictment and all the rest of the interpretation of the DOJ / FBI / ELITE agenda is interesting, possibly accurate, but irrelevant to the issue of his legitimate arrest.

[Two Americas]

118. agreed

I am not talking about the governor. I am talking about the actions of the feds.

[Political Heretic]

121. Ok gotcha - I'm sorry I misunderstood your comments above.

Apologies.... I was over here picking my jaw up haha.

[truth2power]

106. I'm down to the last 8 pages...

It's not "blather". Most of it is based on information obtained through wiretaps and it seems pretty clear that everything was for sale and Blagojevich saw it all in terms of its net gain for himself or his wife.

If I were a lawyer I don't know how I'd formulate a defense on this.

[blondeatlast]

107. I've been wondering the same, seriously. It might be fun to have some

of Blago's amateur defense team (includint the OP) come up with an angle.

Contempt of court given to anyone who hints or outright says "that's just Chicago politics" in any way, shape, or form.

[YvonneCa]

109. Read it yesterday. He's innocent until proven guilty...

...but the taped evidence is pretty damning. The Gov. clearly was making decisions based on enriching himself personnally, and not based on what Illinois voters elect an official to do...make decisions for the good of Illinois.

I saw no blather at all.

[slackmaster]

152. Only the government is required to regard him as innocent

You and I are free to say whatever we want.

[baldguy]

123. "A Senate seat is a valuable thing. I'm not just going to give it away for free."

[Joanne98]

142. Blago is crazy. The only person listening to him was his sidekick.

Delusions of grandeur. Big time!

[truth2power]

162. Indeed! "Crazy" comes to mind. But this is so...Shakesperean...

"I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself
And falls on the other."

Macbeth, Act I, scene vii

[ShortnFiery]

172. Hey I have background in mental health field - but verify the following contention.

Blago is demonstrating traits that MAY qualify him for the DSM-IV psychiatric Dx of "Antisocial Personality Disorder."

I'm not being FLIP and asserting that he's an antisocial personality, but there are some indicators appearing from what I've read about Blago's person. ;)

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx7.htm

This disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of a disregard for other people's rights, often crossing the line and violating those rights. This pattern of behavior has occurred since age 15 (although only adults 18 years or older can be diagnosed with this disorder) and consists by the presence of the majority of these symptoms:

failure to conform to social norms - with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest

deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure

impulsivity or failure to plan ahead ...

[This One]

143. I read all 75 pages. They have tapes. He's guilty.

[NaturalHigh]

154. I didn't read it, but my wife did.

She thinks Blagojevich is as crooked as a dog's hind leg. With what I've heard from the taped conversation excerpts that have been made available, I tend to agree.

[Usrename]

168. I don't really understand the second count of the indictment.

It's pretty clear that I am missing something that others seem to have no problem seeing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4626924

[treestar]

175. True enough, they'll still have to prove it

It may all be enough for the arrest, but the prosecutor will have to be able to follow through and prove it in court. If they don't, otherwise, the guy walks.

[Crabby Appleton]

176. I read it - Blago's toast

the criminal complaint only includes enough to make an arrest - not all they know.

[terrya]

179. Would there be this kind of caution if Rod Blagojevich was a Republican?

Just wondering.