27 Comments - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:00 pm: The media has been clearly willing to link Blagojevich misdeeds to Obama in the face of evidence to the contrary. Whereas, the U.S. attorney scandal orchestrated most likely by Karl Rove with the bumbling acquiescence of AG Alberto Gonzales, was not linked to Bush. So, when a Democrat does something bad the media links it to the Dem President even when the available evidence says there is no link. When the Bush administration engages in criminal conduct the media refused to link the criminal conduct to Bush, even when the conduct was clearly done to further administration objectives, e.g. the outing of Valeria Plame. Yet, the Republican whiners still insist that the media is biased against their team. - Bill Baar - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:03 pm: I don’t have a copy of the compliant in front of me, but right now the public is focused on the second compliant of auctioning off Obama’s seat. (I think it was the second). The first compliant was a kind of open ended charge of corruption going all the way back to 2002. How any Democrat (and a few R’s…it is a combine) can escape being “involved” in a compliant that goes back to 2002 is hard to conceive. If Fitz fleshes out that first compliant many Pols are going to be badly involved…. but everyone is zeroed into selling off the Senate seat right now… …there is much more to come. - Truth - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:03 pm: Rich, We keep hearing certain people aren’t a TARGET of the investigation. I think that can be confusing to some. Can you or someone here explain if this means they are in the clear, or could they still become a target? Example Jackson Jr. is not a target. Is he in the clear? - Bill Baar - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:05 pm: How any Democrat… I mean how any of the big names in Illinois Politics save the ones like MJM who made a point of keeping their distance… This is going to be a very wide net cast if Fitz follows through with it. - Chicago Cynic - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:07 pm: This is supremely aggravating. I’ve spent countless hours educating national media about the relationship between Rod and Barack but the media needs scandal to survive so stories persist. I’m sure Rich has been through this too. It’s all rather annoying. - Captain Flume - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:09 pm: Poll results are not news, just easy headlines for journalists and a way to fill space without facts. I said something similar in another thread. Let’s talk about something more substantive like that Jay Hoffman is supposed to be holding a press conference. Is that true? Did he hold it already? - Bill Baar - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:09 pm: Carl, The whole Chamchamal power plant deal with Rezko and Alsammarae has a bi partisan aspect. Remember those pictures of Alsammarae and Bush. That’s one reason why the Alsammarae story was so troubling was both parties had reason to see it buried. - Boscobud - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:09 pm: Hey Carl, I remember back in September the media has already told American that Obama has won the election. I remember when the media was telling Americans that Gore is the clear winner. I remember when the media was telling America that John Kerry was going to win. The media today still brings up the sign that Bush had hanging behind him on that said “mission completed”. Oh, I also forgot about the Obama birth certificate problem? So did the media. - Black Ivy - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:14 pm: Illinois has high hopes for President-Elect Barack Obama, surprisingly more so than other states?!? Let’s hope he does not disappoint. - Deep South - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:16 pm: I don’t really think its the media trying to link Blago and Obama, rather the media is reporting on those who are. I mean the GOP chairman issues a daily news release linking the two together. Other elements of the party are doing much the same. Should the media just ignore this? I suppose it depends on just how partisan you are. - Boscobud - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:21 pm: The media is just trying to do there jobs. They see a juicy news story and they spin it. It is the views job to filter through all the news and its up to them to figure out what is fact and fiction. The problem lies when the views don’t do this, and who has the time? - Bill Baar - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:34 pm: Now, didn’t the Gov repeat five times in a single sentence about the Judge writing in a letter Barack Obama and I did nothing wrong? It won’t be the GOP alone linking the Gov and Obama. - James the Intolerant - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:38 pm: I think Obama was too quick to say there was no interaction with Blago instead of saying I had no interaction and I will talk to my staff. It makes sense that the former Senator would talk to the appointer of his replacement, but after Obama made the statement that he did there was no wiggle room. Did Obama or staff do anything illegal? No. Does Obama look bad because of the way he handled it? Yes. - wordslinger - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 3:58 pm: Still, the Obama people could have and should have avoided the whole situation by not having any contact with the Blago people on the seat. They should have put Illinois in their rearview the day of the election. It was parochial big-footing by the Illinois-heavy team. First Axelrod with his contradictory statements regarding Obama/Blago, then Emanuel with his candidate list and wiretapped conversations. They didn’t send a list of candidates to Gov. Patterson on an “acceptable” replacement for Hillary, did they? I hope not. I don’t even want to know if Biden big-footed in Delaware. Smart presidents have historically done their best to stay out of local political issues. A smart president-elect should have done the same, especially when Blago was involved. - VanillaMan - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 4:16 pm: ==How likely is it that President-elect Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the Blagojevich scandal?== What would it say of him if he really had no interest in his replacement in the Senate, and didn’t contact Blagojevich personally or through his staff? Last week when he said he had no contact with Blagojevich over his Senate replacement, the next question should have been, “Why didn’t you?” Any normal politician in Obama’s situation would have dealt with Blagojevich somehow through someone. Barack’s answers so far are not normal. When he supposedly pushed for Jarrett as his replacement, how did he know she couldn’t get the seat from Blagojevich? What was said? Somehow that news came through to Obama so that he appointed her into his staff. Are we supposed to believe it was all coincidence? Of course not. What we want to know is what did Obama say to Blagojevich regarding a senate replacement, when did he say it, what Blagojevich demanded for his replacement, and what Obama said after that. Normal stuff. No one is accusing Obama of breaking the law. But to believe he sat like a Buddha silently while the governor he has dealt with since 2003 worked the phones is simply unbelievable. Obama’s comments just don’t make sense until he fills in the blanks. - You Go Boy - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 4:22 pm: As to the “target” question, a prosecutor on TV noted it was significant that JJJr was not a “target”, but according to this commentator, that doesn’t mean he’s not a “subject” - which I assume would be like a “person of interest”. - dupage progressive - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 4:22 pm: obama doing a news conference right now, announcing his energy team… he’s taking questions now after making his announcements & letting nominees talk. he seems to be calling on reporters who he knows has energy-related questions. I wonder if all the IL media types are in springfield. what a day in IL!! - Bubs - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 4:42 pm: A “target” is a person “as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” So, if you are a target, you are already in deep hot water. Think of the designation as a warning to regard yourself as a probable criminal defendant, and retain appropriate counsel accordingly. Conversely, given the high standard of target, not being a target is hardly “home free.” A “subject” is a person “whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.” If you are a subject, you have reason to sweat, as it means they are indeed looking at your conduct, but have not formed any conclusion that you are culpable. Think of it as a warning that your conduct is under scrutiny, and you might want to think about getting a lawyer to advise you. No one should put much reliance on “subjects” getting counsel. Lots of completely innocent people do that every day because they were near, but not part of, criminal conduct. The line between “target” and “subject” is thin, however. - hisgirlfriday - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 4:49 pm: Exactly YouGoBoy. Target = person who is indicted or they are looking for info to indict. Subject = person who is a witness or an actor who plays some other essential role in the investigation/indictment. For example, Rod Blagojevich may have been a subject of the Rezko-Kelly business when he was Public Official A. But he’s a target now. This whole thing doesn’t smell right to me and I want desperately to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I want to believe Obama’s team about this stuff about Fitzgerald not wanting them to disclose all this info so as not to interrupt the investigation, but it just reminds me of the same stonewalling Bush and Co. pulled on the Karl Rove-Scooter Libby business. - hisgirlfriday - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 4:56 pm: Oh to clarify… I don’t think Obama did anything wrong. I just am dreading whatever comes out about Rahm and Axelrod in this, especially Rahm… not that I was terribly thrilled about him being chief of staff in the first place, however. - Bill Baar - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 5:02 pm: …but it just reminds me of the same stonewalling Bush and Co. pulled on the Karl Rove-Scooter Libby business. Recall Rove and Libby handled the Grand Jury in very different ways. Libby volunteered little while Rove offered to return to clarify anthing that wasn’t clear to the jury. Rove took the far riskier approach and it paid off. There is an analogy there to follow in this mess. - Bubs - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 7:18 pm: Setting aside the possibility of any actual participation, which looks extremely remote at best, could the real problem be that certain high level people knew full well that Blago was demanding direct payback, but no one turned him in? If so, that is not a basis for criminal culpability in this modern age. Active concealment is required. But the political damage could be substantial given the intense media focus and the messiah-like trappings of the Obama campaign (which, if they never encouraged, they certainly never discouraged, either.) Americans love to find dirt on prophets. If Rahm Emanuel knew, I certainly would not as yet make plans for a special election in the 5th C.D. It may not be needed. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 15, 08 @ 11:59 pm: Not sure this means anything based solely on the wording because it’s “apples and oranges” from the perspective of those polled/making the statement and the subject of each poll/statement. Collectively, could be interpreted as follows: 1: “…nobody in the Obama TRANSITION TEAM is the target of their probe.” Attributed to the Feds. Obviously, would carry alot of weight if formally “cleared”. Worst case, ongoing sentiment may be that the transition team is clean though campaign MAY have been tainted to a certain degree IF everyone who was key on the campaign is NOT part of transition team. Probably forgiveable depending on who, if anyone, from campaign is identified as “tainted”. 2: “…President-elect OBAMA or one of his top CAMPAIGN AIDES…” attributed to a National poll. Probably guilt by association: the perception reinforced since this popped up that Illinois is in fact most corrupt state, and general belief that CAMPAIGN staff will say and do anything to get someone elected. Obviously if some top folks on campaign are identified as tainted but they are NOT part of transition team, POSSIBILITY same could reflect well on Obama as he moves into Office. 3: “…President-elect OBAMA…” attributed to Illinois. Focused on group who know he’s a product of our State now at the national level and perception of government overall, which shouldn’t be as “questionable” as those involved in campaigns–even in Illinois. This group will, of course, be “friendlier”. Collectively, if all goes and is handled well, could actually make Obama look GOOD over the long haul: “I’m coming from a place that obviously has some problems, but we weeded out the few left who were “bad” quickly after the election, so we’re moving into office clean. Please try to disassociate me from Illinois.” (Good for Obama, probably bad for Illinois.) On the other hand, if there’s even one person on the current team or who otherwise continues to be perceived as close to Obama that’s identified as tainted, VERY rocky start for Obama that’s going to follow him for a while. Even from a Republican point of view, that would be a very unfortunate thing for our Country. - western illinois - Tuesday, Dec 16, 08 @ 12:00 am: 55% nationall thinking something is wrong is politically serious regardless of truth it shows incompetance and weakness -he doesnt look like the same guy who jubecame president. He is also angering his base…appointment by appointment He may haveappointed Hillary but if the Clintons smell blood in the water by 2010 does anyone really think that protects him ? He came in raising expectations in a time of crsis. O just have this sad sinking feeling Someone talk me down - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Dec 16, 08 @ 8:24 am: People may believe that Obama is connected to this pay-to-play scheme. They may believe he is not connected. Their beliefs have no affect on the truth. It’s why I hate polls on issues like this. - Gabriel - Tuesday, Dec 16, 08 @ 8:34 am: ==could the real problem be that certain high level people knew full well that Blago was demanding direct payback, but no one turned him in?== Fitzgerald tells you in the criminal complaint that he’s not telling you all that he knows. Only what is necessary to support the two charges. - Belle - Tuesday, Dec 16, 08 @ 8:42 am: Its deja vu all over again… Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.