Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: ISBE recommends aid increase
Next Post: Obamarama - Levine, Rezko, Cari
Posted in:
First, it was the Better Government Association, now it’s the infamous Judicial Watch. From a press release:
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed an open records lawsuit against the office of Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.), who is under federal investigation on several fronts, including corrupt hiring practices. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, filed on Jan. 16, 2007 in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court, specifically seeks, among other documents, any and all grand jury subpoenas received by the governor’s office or any state agencies under the governor’s control. The subpoenas reportedly were issued by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan has already said that the governor needs to fork over the information, which prompted the BGA’s lawsuit. Judicial Watch filed a FOIA last November for the information and was turned down.
“There is an air of lawlessness in how Governor Blagojevich is handling
this document request. He ought to listen to the advice of the state’s top legal officer and release these documents,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The citizens of Illinois have a right to know the full details related to alleged corruption in the governor’s office.”
It’s not posted yet, but eventually the entire lawsuit can be downloaded here.
Also, the governor’s rationale for not handing over the subpoenas appears to be evolving.
Terry Mutchler, the public access counselor for Attorney General Lisa Madigan, wrote in a letter to the administration that without additional legal reasoning “the Office of the Governor and the agencies under his control cannot withhold Federal grand jury subpoenas in their possession and must release these documents.”
Abby Ottenhoff, a spokeswoman for Blagojevich, said the governor’s office had received viewpoints from the attorney general’s office that did not agree with Mutchler.
According to Anne Spillane, Madigan’s chief of staff, even though the governor’s office has not laid out the appropriate legal reasoning yet for withholding the documents, it is ongoing process.
Ottenhoff said U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was “crystal clear” that the governor’s office should not disclose or discuss any subpoenas.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 9:06 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: ISBE recommends aid increase
Next Post: Obamarama - Levine, Rezko, Cari
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
good to see Larry Klyman and his crew giving Our Governor fits. I’ve met Terry Mutchler at bar events, very competent attorney who knows FOIA very well.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 9:08 am
So how many personal conversations has the Governor’s office had with Mr. Fitzgerald? Is it possible that the Governors office is, as we speak trying to get the U.S. Attorney to issue a statement allowing the Governor’s office to continue to hide from the public?
Comment by I can't believe we did it again Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 9:23 am
I’m really getting sick of the spin used by this administration. They know that the law trumps Fitzgerald’s request; so the only question that they should be asking is what the law requires, and there seems to be a consensus that the law requires disclosure of the information.
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 9:37 am
According to Sneed today, a top top US attorney
is interviewing out on the street in Chicago, I guess the law firm street.
And I hear the Bush administration has requested the resignations of about 10 US attorneys across the country.
Wonder what effect that might have on Chicago and on Blago. Convenient for our local Dem powerhouses if Bush needs something from top Dems and this is the price…
Comment by Anon Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 10:01 am
Bush really shouldn’t touch Fitzgerald while the Libby “trial” is underway. Why should Bush look like the guy hiding something, when he doesn’t have to? So, it would be a major screw-up for the White House in my opinion to remove Fitzgerald right now, even if it would make Blagojevich extremely happy.
For an innocent guy, Governor Blagojevich is acting guilty. You don’t do these things if there is nothing to hide. What would be the point? Why would he drag this out and escalate the issue if he wasn’t concerned that the truth would escalate the issue out of his control? Without a doubt, there is it getting very smokey around him, there must be a fire.
Even if the truth comes out and Blagojevich could look bad, why would he add to it? Could there be a few staffers making decisions for him on this and actually making things worst? Possibly.
We now know that Watergate was an FBI conspiracy against the White House because Nixon wanted an outsider running the FBI. Then F. Mark Felts was ticked over not getting a promotion, and started leaking to the Post. If governors and presidents stopped stonewalling and started acting like Truman, who let adversaries howl, Blagojevich could tick off lots of people, do lots of partisan stuff, but hang around years in office.
Didn’t Blagojevich run as a reformer? Jeez! It seems like eons ago. Wow! How far has this guy fallen? He is showing Ryan how to do corruption right, isn’t he?
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 10:27 am
If, as Ms. Ottenhoff says U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was “crystal clear†that the governor’s office should not disclose or discuss any subpoenas.
Shouldn’t Patrick Fitzgerald or his office weigh in on this whole fiasco and soon. That way we can all move forward and stop wasting the taxpayer’s money.
Comment by All The King's Men Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 10:45 am
VM:
====Watergate was an FBI conspiracy against the White House ====
The leaking may or may not have been a “conspiracy,” but there was still a whole lot of criminal activity to be leaking about. Let’s avoid this sort of rhetoric and move along, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 10:54 am
My example wasn’t a good one. I was attempting to bring up Truman’s advice to Nixon regarding Watergate. It was something on the order of, “Yeah, I did it. Now lets move along.”
That is one of the many reasons we see Truman as a great president, and Nixon as a lousy one.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 12:32 pm
“You aint seen nothing yet”
Isn’t that the truth.
Comment by MIDSTATE Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 4:51 pm
The onus isn’t on Fitzgerald to clear up the issue–it’s on Blagojevich, and he has a nasty tendancy to draw others into the conversation and make it seem as if they’re the ones behind the problem. He did this with Topinka, claiming that they wouldn’t agree to a debate time, when it was actually Blagojevich who was making things difficult (just ask WTTW or the Illinois Radio Network.)
Comment by Squideshi Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 7:59 am