...and the other shoe drops.

canyouhearme:

Being dense certainly appears to be yours.

whatthe?,

Have it your way --- being wrong appears to be your station in life.

canyouhearme:

You and Blago have it your way; you are the only two who seem to think this way. The retrial will be fun.

JQP:

I noticed that in the Fox article too. It mentioned the retrial being funded by the Federal Defender Program but still specifically said the Illinois taxpayers were on the hook. The other articles said Illinois taxpayers sometimes, taxpayers in general other times, which could also be taken to mean ALL U.S. taxpayers through the federal program. But the overall impression I got from all this was that Illinois taxpayers were going to have to pony up for Blago's retrial and appeal(s) to some extent. Maybe no one knows for sure.

what the?,

Please try and comprehend only that which is written, yes?

Let's go a little slower ---- I advocated putting him in jail for the 5 years. If THAT is what you mean by a criminal holiday, well, sorry about your lack of basic defintions.

Still Blago 23, Fitz 1

Still canuhearmenow 1, JQP 0 (and what the off the grid).

Perhaps you could use a little remedial math and government studies?

what the?,

Your guess is as good as mine on who bears the cost of Blago's defense. The articles you linked indicate that it will be Illinois taxpayers. The Fox News article was more specific in saying that it is Cook County taxpayers. But none of the articles goes into detail to explain how/why state funds would be used for a defendant in a federal trial. One article mentions the Criminal Justice Act’s Federal Defender Program; from what I've read, this is a federal program, dealing with federal courts, and is funded by the U.S. Treasurey.

-JQP

A criminal holiday post is precisely what you are advocating. Since the Fed is "technically" bankrupt, no money = no criminal trials. Pretty cut and dried.

JQP: 1
cuhmn: still 0

Now I'm moving on.

I am so sorry that what the?, JQP, and anon don't understand our criminal system or the simple concepts of innocent until proven guilty, et.al.

Simply put, Not found guilty equals still innocent. So, still Blago 23, Fitz 1.

Still canuhearmenow 1, JQP 0 (unless, of course, anon wants us to adapt adapt a system from one of the places he may admire so well ----Cuba, perhaps? Or Iran?)

Now, JQP, I cannot speak for you, but I also pay Fed taxes and since the Fed is also technically bankrupt, I have the same comment: Put him away for the 5 and move on.

What the/, as usual, is taking the argument to an asinine extreme via her criminal holiday post.

And Ken is truly and literally predictable. I call it correctly every time.

JQP:

True. But I have read many articles claiming that a retrial would specifically cost the taxpayers of Illinois. Blago depleted his campaign fund account in paying for the first trial. His retrial lawyer's fees will be paid for by the state, according to articles such as these:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/2140338,CST-NWS-watchdogs05.article

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0820/Rod-Blagojevich-broke-so-taxpayers-would-pay-for-defense-in-retrial

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/illinois-taxpayers-facing-massive-blagojevich-retrial/

Is this not the case?

Give that the Federal conviction rate is in excess of 95%, hung juries are a victory.

And the count he was found guilty on should NEVER be allowed. The two FBI screw job. Make sure you all understand. Blago is interviewed by two FBI agents. After the meeting, they write down their account. They are suppose to do it individually, but the resulting recounts of the interview (or whatever they are called) are almost EXACTLY the same.

Blago was denied counsel, there was no electronic recording or court reporter. Essentially it is your word versus their word, but since there are two accounts, you lose.

The word to the wise, NEVER agree to such an interview no matter what the pretense. Remember, this interview happened early in his administration, he thought it was perfunctory. He went in without any knowledge of the allegation or issues.

This tripped up Scooter Libby (not the original accusation).

Again,

A bad law.

A bad process.

Next time the FBI asks you to come in for an interview by yourself for ANYTHING, just say no. Make them get a court order so you can have representatives.

This is the ugly side of our democracy.

what the?

Actually, this is a federal trial, so none of us need worry about the impact on state finances.

-JQP

Personally, wt, I would think a liberal like you would be concerned by the obvious persecution of a citizen. Instead, you seem to be in favor of trying to take away his rights once again. First you don't want him to be able to earn any money; now you don't want him to be able to exercise his appeal rights on the one charge the feds managed to make stick. You are truly and literally unbelievable.

P.S.:

Blago isn't worried about the $$ he is costing the state. He plans to appeal his one guilty count.

Why should defendants be allowed to waste state money appealing rulings if the prosecution can't retry because of cost?

Ken will be all over this one.

Just think how much tax money we would save if we did away with the justice system entirely and brought absolutely no criminals to trial. If justice is going to be pursued based only on cost, then why bother to try anyone? Let's just call a moratorium on all criminal trials until the state is back in the black--call it a criminal prosecution holiday. That's a sure way to save lots of taxpayer $$!

JQP = 1
canuhearmenow/anonymous = 0

Uh, JQP --- again, please learn to read & comprehend.

I never posted Blago won --- I DID post Fitz lost (23 to 1) based on our legal system of innocent until proven guilty and, oh, by the way, a trial by jury!

Theother 23 are only in play IF he is retrialed. I. like many in the state, believe we have wasted enough time & moiney and it is time to stop and just send him to jail.

Perhaps you like to see your tax dollars wasted --- I don't.

canuhearmenow,

I don't have a comprehension problem; YOU have a math problem. In your own words:

This does not mean he won --- given our system, it means Fitz did NOT win.

Exactly. Blago did not win, so you can't put the 23 hung counts in his "W" column. Unless, of course, it is your contention that before the trial the "score" was Blago 24, Fitz 0. But "innocent until proven guilty" does not mean that the defense starts off with a "victory" on all counts; it just means that the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution for each and every count.

You also seem to view the trial as a game in which each charge is an individual point, but this is not correct, because each charge is it's own game. Blago has lost one game. The other 23 are still in play. Fitz has not won any of those games yet, but the clock is still ticking.

We have beaten this argument into the ground and pounded it to dust. You may have the last word, if you wish.

-JQP

No, it is you who are wrong.

You seem incapable of actually reading the posts of others and instead prefer to add in your own interpretations.

It is simpe math, so I will try again:

>Innocent until proven guilty.
>Blag - NOT found guilty on 23 counts
>Blago - Found guilty on one count.

At THIS POINT IN TIME, the score is a simple math exercise of Blago 23, Fitz 1. What is your problem in comprehension?

This does not mean he won --- given our system, it means Fitz did NOT win.

Yes, he can try again (Wow? Talk about competing egos!). It is my opinion that given our dstate of bankruptcy, we should just send him away for the five years and NOT waste any more money on this slug.

Any questions?

canuhearmenow,

One big reason for Illinois' financial woes is that there is a culture of political corruption that too many people accept as being the natural state of things. To let Blago off only works to perpetuate this situation. Moreover, that other politicians may be guilty of some of the same crimes of which RB is accused is NOT a good reason to let him off the hook.

As to the "score", you are still, as ever, wrong. The game is not over, so Blago has not "won" on any of those 23 counts until he is either acquitted, or the prosecution decides not to proceed. Since many of the votes in the first trial were reportedly heavily in favor of conviction, there WILL be another trial, and there is a very good chance there will be further "victories" for the prosecution in that trial.

-JQP

JQP,

You describe a hung jury, and I am well aware they CAN retrial it.

However, in a state that has a deficit well over 120 BILLION {that's with a "B"] dollars, I would think we have better things to do with the money.

I simply stated the score ---- Blago 23, Fitz 1.

canuhearmenow,

Blago has not been found guilty on 23 charges, but neither was he acquitted. What YOU don't seem to understand about our system of justice is that the government can retry a case if the vote in the first trial is not unanimous for the defendant. From a legal standpoint, it's as if he has not yet been tried on those charges. To say that he's won at this point is like saying he had won before he even went to trial. The game is NOT yet over, despite what you seem to think.

-JQP

Anonymous on August 27, 2010 11:51 AM:

You stated, "Talk about media whores ----- is there EVER a day when Obama is not on tv?"

Obama is not on pop culture TV shows every day, so I assume you're talking about his statements to the press on the issue of the week that are broadcast by the likes of CNN, etc., State of the Union addresses, and so forth. So if one's day job puts them in the media, that makes them, by default, a media whore? By complaining about the amount of Obama's TV exposure but making no distinction among venues or purpose, it sounds like frequency is the only criteria you're using to make this judgment. By your definition, then, everyone who appears on TV or radio on a somewhat regular basis is a media whore. Suit yourself.

what the? on August 26, 2010 11:23 PM,

Talkshows are pop culture!

They were paid via their exposure to a geo segment they wwere trying to reach.

Yes, they are all media whores ---- what is your point?

Since you cannot see the similarity, I can see your problem.

JQP,

Here in the U.S one is innocent until proven guilty. Fitz missed on 23 of 24 counts. Thus, Blago 23, Fitz 1.

It seems pretty cut & dried.

JQP:

I think Blago IS an even bigger idiot than many people think. Have you caught any of his interviews?

He's taunting the prosecution over the retrial, says the one hung juror vindicates him, and asserts he will not take a deal to avoid a retrial. Of course, what he says he will do and what he actually does can be two totally different things, as we've already seen. And he claims he still has a political future after all this is over.

Blago might be a lawyer, but he's a delusional egomaniac first and foremost. And like a lot of egomaniacs, he'll probably do himself in.

Anonymous on August 26, 2010 4:22 PM

Here's what I'm talking about:

W. Bush went on the Oprah Show, Letterman, and did a televised interview with pop psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw. Those are just the ones I remember, there could be more. I guess that makes George W. Bush the Whore, by your definition.

Not by my definition. Those are TALK shows, the exception being where Clinton also played the sax on Letterman. No money exchanged hands for those interviews. Bush, Obama and Clinton were not paid to appear. Not so with everything Palin and Blago do. Palin was paid for her faux "camping" trip with Kate Plus Eight and Blago collected a check for The Apprentice. There's NOTHING those two won't do for a buck. If you can't understand the difference, then I see your problem.

canuhearmenow wrote:

Lawyers tend to look at mistrials as "not winning", thus Blago 23, Fitz 1 is a valid view of the debacle.

Most people view mistrials as "not winning"; most people view ties as "not winning". What is your point? The prosecution didn't win, but neither did Blago. And, if I'm not mistaken, Blago is a lawyer, so, by your own logic, he likely really knows this, despite what he says in public. If he doesn't know it, then he's an even bigger idiot than many people think.

You can bet Fitz would drop the case if, on the hung counts, he were dealing with a bunch of 10-2 and 11-1 votes in favor of acquittal. Heck, he'd probably drop the case if the votes were in the 6-6 range. The reason he is pursuing the case is that he knows he stands a good chance of winning on the next go around.

Glock, I guess you are missing my point, or maybe disagreeing with it. I don't think Blago should have been indicted at all, unless you are going to indict every politician who quid pro quoed or had family who got better positions because of their office. Unfortunately, what Blago attempted to do with the senate appointment is done all over the country. Patty's pay for a job not done is also common practice, as Hilary's stock deals and Michele's promotions show. I simply object to a politician being singled out for something that all politicians do.

JQP,

Lawyers tend to look at mistrials as "not winning", thus Blago 23, Fitz 1 is a valid view of the debacle.

...and yet Obama the Whore does go on pop culture shows on a regular basis (see letterman, the View, etc).

So what ru talking about again?

Anon on August 23 at 8:17 PM:

Of course. Once Obama is out of office, he'll do the speaking engagements for a fee thing, all ex-presidents have. Maybe he will even write more books, who knows. But while he is in office, he speaks for free. He is in the media now in the process of doing his job. Very different from Palin and Blago who have no day jobs. In fact, Palin quit hers so she could devote herself 24/7 to being a media whore and reaping the much bigger fees that come from that. And I'm positive that Obama has too much dignity to ever debase himself by appearing on such pop culture shows as Kate Plus Eight for money or by selling his autograph for $50 a pop at Comic Con. I went to a Chicago area Comic Con a couple of years ago. These things can be freak shows. That explains why Blago chose that venue, but his autograph selling was the second lowest form of money grubbing I have ever seen from an ex-politican. The first was impersonating Elvis at a Chicago block party for a fee. There's nothing this guy won't do for a buck. Gross.

Also, community organizing and talking off a teleprompter are TWO things, not one. This reminds me of the old joke, "There are three kinds of people. Those who can count and those who can't".

canuhearmenow wrote:

Fitz lost.

Blago 23, Fitz 1.

Blago was not a acquitted on a single count, so the score is actually Fitz 1, Blago 0, with 23 ties---though many of the ties reportedly lean heavily in Fitz' favor, which is why there will be a retrial.

-JQP

what the? on August 23, 2010 8:17 PM,

Wait until he is out (like Clinton). He will be speaking for millions (like Sarah and Blago) and doing the one thing he knows how to do ---- Community organize and talk off of a teleprompter!

Uh, glock -----

Fitz lost.

Blago 23, Fitz 1.

Let's move on. Besides, I am not sure we will even have the money to retrial given Illionois is already 140 BILLION in debt, and fading fast.

Preserve Justice:

IF, IF, IF . . .

Jesse J. put up the 1 million
B.O. cut a deal for Valerie Jarrett to serve
B.O. expects the U.S. to go to Mars in his lifetime because THE PRESIDENT IS REALLY A MARTIAN!!

He's not a Muslin born in Kenyan. He's a Martian sent to Earth to serve up mankind to the red planet aliens.

What is it with conservatives and bizarre conspiracy theories?

Ken and others, we should not budget justice after indictment. To do so dilutes the intregrity of the justice system which already is questionable in a number of fronts. If the evidence was serious enough to allow for indictment, then the case should be prosecuted and in this case, the counts to which the jury was hung should be retried in my opinion. A crime spree WAS stopped. It was stopped at the conspiracy level and Fitz was right to do so before our legislative branch was compromised by a rouge politician with a completion of his crime spree of self enrichment. Think of the magnification of problems that could have occurred had they just simply waited until full fruition of the crime spree was allowed to occur. I still think people close to Obama were involved in this however it was right to stop it. One juror put her political and personal opinions before her duty as a juror. (one of the afronts to judicial integrity alluded to above) It seems from what other jury members said and her unnamed friends, she proclaimed she would not convict this lunatic governor of anything BEFORE the conclusion of the trial. Her conduct should be investigated to determine if she committed any violations of law and if so, she can face charges and indictment too. But lets be real, Blago got off because of a juror nullification of the case. I for one will look forward to his retrial after the first of the year according to Zagel as he does not want another jury to deal with this through the upcomming holidays. Good for him! Prosecuting corrupt politicans D & R is a good thing and it is what they really fear more than just being voted out of office.

The 11 to 1 verdicts came in selling the senate seat. And all you need to do it put Peter Fitzgerald on the stand. His words exactly--he PREVENTED A CRIME SPREE. How can anyone be guilty if they discussed an act or thought about an act?

IF....
..........Jesse Jackson junior put up the $1 million
..........Barack Obama cut a deal for Valarie Jarret to serve
..........or anything else

THEN....
..........Blago is guilty.

You can't electrocute a person because he owns a gun (although I guess some people would).

Didn't Ryan have a juror in his pocket too? The only reason he's getting golf lessons in Wisconsin is because SHE got caught lying on her preliminary juror questionaire. I hope this OTHER woman enjoys her newfound wealth!

Anon of August 23 at 1:06:

Too bad Obama doesn't get paid per appearance like Palin and Blago do!

Talk about media whores ----- is there EVER a day when Obama is not on tv?

Get a life, Ken. It was obviously a rhetorical question. The man's an embarrassment to everyone but himself. The only people I feel sorry for in all of this are his two kids.

Why go to all the expense of a retrial? That was eloquently answered by Allan Shaw.

He's a convicted felon awaiting an appeal and sentencing. He has every right to be on the street, making money to pay for his huge trial bills. What part of the rights afforded to all citizens don't you understand, wt? Or do you believe that only those you deem non-freak shows are allowed the basic rights provided by the constitution?

What I find amazing is the fact that people are willing to pay $50 for his autograph, although those interviewed indicated that they were supporting a man they believed wrongfully accused and prosecuted.

What I don't understand are the number of rabid calls for Blago to be retried. Why not take the conviction attained on the one charge, as the man's life is already ruined? George Ryan was convicted on 18 charges, and only got a year and a half more than Blago is eligible to get. Why go to all the expense of a retrial for just a little more time?

Blago at Comic Con? Are you kidding me?!!! He has officially surpassed Sarah Palin as the country's ultimate media whore. He's a convicted felon--can't someone get this one-man freak show off the street?

Save the nmoney and send him off for the max on the one count (5 years?).

Enough already!

My taxes have better uses than this crap.

I'm sick of seeing and hearing this idoit. Put him away for 5 years and retry him on all the other counts.

Here's Blago's interview with Meredith Viera this morning for those of you who missed it. The retrial can't come soon enough:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38781326/ns/today-today_people/

How did Bush get into this convesation?

Martha Stewart is of no relevance to Blagojevich. This media linking is ludicrous. Not one single word spoken by her or any Bush goon was recorded in a transcript or in sworn testimony. She did no "lying." Martha Stewart "did time" because of modern-day mob rule (spearheaded by the media), grossly incompetent legal representation, perjury by a state expert witness and a stealth juror.

I write in response to your editorial advocating no retrial of former Governor Blagovich (Blago) on account of the cost. Although your reasoning has merit, I believe it would be very wrong for four reasons.

1. Martha Stewart was convicted and did time for lying when she had done nothing else wrong. Most of us, including 11 of 12 jurors, believe Blago did a great deal wrong in addition to lying. Even if he is sentenced to and serves 5 years, it would be a very disparate sentence.

2. You (correctly) applauded the Naperville City Council for resisting Councilman Furstenau’s lawsuit when it would have been much less expensive to accede to his demands. Why treat Blago differently?

The other jurors have stated that the lone holdout had two reasons for doing so;
She did not see “clear-cut evidence,” of Blago’s guilt and
She thought Blago “was just talking. It was just politics. He wasn’t serious.”

3. On the “clear-cut evidence” issue, the juror intentionally or otherwise ignored the Judge’s instructions. The standard for determining guilt or innocence is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” not “clear-cut evidence.” Hopefully this is something that Judge Zagel and others will learn from this case and carefully instruct future juries to prevent a re-occurrence.

4. The “just politics” is the most disturbing element of all. No wonder our political system is such a mess when any of our citizens think that conduct such as Blago’s was “just politics.” Fortunately 11 of the 12 jurors didn’t think so, and to not retry him would imply that we will tolerate such conduct. I think not, and I hope not.

Blago is entitled to a fair trial, as we, the citizens, are also. Thanks to one holdout juror, we did not get one and I venture that most of us wouldn’t willingly give up the opportunity for a fair trial just to save a few bucks.

Allan Shaw

What confuses you, Glock? I believe in guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the defendant is a man I pretty much despise. I think he did get prosecuted for 'politics as usual', just as George Ryan did. If you don't realize that Blago is indeed just doing what all politicians do, just look at Michelle Obama. Every time her husband gained a more powerful position (with the exception of the last one), she also benefited. If I remember correctly, her salary almost doubled when he became a senator, and there were quite a few people questioning why that was so.
Most politicians from both sides of the aisle benefit enormously from their office (why do you think they spend millions to get elected?), help their family benefit, and vote to benefit their big contributors. Very few get prosecuted for it.

I'm with Glock and what the. If the jury is deadlocked with the votes either relatively even or going mostly in favor of the defendant, then a retrial doesn't make sense. When you've got votes that are 11-1 in favor of conviction, though, the prosecution should go for it.

One strategic move that Fitgerald's office should probably make, however, is to drop some of the charges where the jury voted 6-6 or 7-5, as they are less likely to get a conviction on these. Some of the jurors apparently felt that between the volume of evidence, and the prosecution's presentation of the evidence, there was a lot of room for confusion; dropping some of the more "iffy" charges might help to streamline the case at the next trial.

I heard the same thing as Glock, that there was only one juror holding out on many of the other counts. Eleven to one isn't good odds going into a retrial.

And here was Blago flapping his gums again after the trial about his innocence. The innocence he claimed he couldn't wait to tell about at his trial that he will actually only talk about outside of a courtroom. Now he won't shut up again. The guy makes me sick.

Retry the douche nozzle. It will be worth every cent.

I am confused by the second and third posts, especially Ken given his past posting. Now we are hearing that most of the jurors wanted to convict him on other counts but one woman juror according to jurors Steve and Eric would not convict him of anything. I am surprised he was only convicted of lying to the FBI which is essentially purjury. And if justice is fair, he should do about two years in the Federal Pen and do 85% of it just as Scooter is doing for the same thing. But to say you didn't hear him do anything illegal, it seems to me soliciting $65,000 a year board appointments for Patty, several of them and holding up public funding of projects paid for by taxpayers until HE gets something of value is criminal activity. Holding up the Senate seat until HE gets something of value in return for an appointment is criminal. The Illinois Compiled Statutes contain a section relating to misconduct of public officials. If we did not have a disfunctional government in Illinois, an impartial IL AG should be considering legal action against Blago on state charges of corruption and misconduct in additional to the Federal case. I actually heard a news wag say that this whole thing was a waste of time and money and all it is doing is criminalizing politics. If conduct by Blago is typical politics, then of course politics is criminal. Blago is the exact reason there is a movement in this country to regain power over the government rather than allow the government to increase its power and influence over the citizens. Now lets go celebrate Democrat day at the state fair in Springfield today.

It doesn't bother me a bit. I think the prosecution didn't present a good case so why should he take the stand. Why didn't the government have Rahm E. or Rezko or Obama testify?

Much as I hate to do so, I have to agree with Rod. I didn't hear anything from the trial that would lead me to vote guilty if I was on the jury.

"Don't sing and we will take care of ya in the joint and fix things later".

Could be a line from a Cagney or Edward G Robinson movie.

Rezko sure went quiet after the presidential elections.