35 Comments - Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:24 am: I would look for Blago to do some gratuitous pardoning today-Any Burge victims and anybody else that might get sympathetic reaction from a ethnic group. I would also think he would go to the Senate and do some pub stunt, however, he can’t testify under oath because he is constantly lying which is one thing on Geraldo but another before a Supreme Court Judge. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:24 am: “…and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” - Anonymous ZZZ - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:26 am: With respect to the article about Blago possibly having a narcissism disorder…I agree that he might, but I have to say that seeing Dr. Bohlen say this, and then throwing in there that his (Bohlen’s) daughter was not given a state job after her internship or fellowship or whatever in the governor’s office, makes him look like someone with an axe to grind against Blago and he’s doing it in public via his comments here. - Honest Abe - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:27 am: Is that all there is? The recordings relating to Johnny Johnston show the seedy side of politics in Illinois, but this seems to be fairly penny ante, especially because no serious money actually changed hands. While I do not know what the other tapes will contain, it does look like Patrick Fitzgerald sent the Illinois Senate the mundane wiretaps. - Blago Sphere - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:29 am: {an example of the legislature not willing to do something to keep Wrigley Field in Illinois.} Was the Tribune Company threatening to move “Wrigley Field” outside of Illinois? Would anyone in the legislature or the Governor for that matter believe it if they were? Either they all think we’re stupid, or they don’t understand that in large part the feeling may be mutual, and those on the fence would have fallen off if it and gotten on board if they thought the legislature and/or the Governor believed the Tribune Company would move ‘Wrigley Field” out of Illinois. - Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:32 am: The federal case against Blagojevich isn’t that strong? Based on the CEO of Children’s Hospital not producing a promised $50,000 campaign contribution Blagojevich directed a subordinate to try to take back $6 million the state paid the hospital. Blagojevich might have some wiggle room on the Senate seat and maybe even the Tribune Company stuff. But the Children’s Memorial charge doesn’t leave Blagojevich much room to say that he was only talking trash. It’s clear Blagojevich thought there was a quid pro quo. And Blagojevich clearly sought to penalize Children’s Memorial for the CEO failing to contribute money. Remember, the law is written very much in favor of the prosecutors. George Ryan thought the information was too vague to get a conviction and went all the way through the process. Is the information on Blagojevich more vague or more specific than on George Ryan? If the information we know on Blagojevich *at this time* is more specific than the information that convicted Ryan then I feel safe saying the feds have a very solid case against Blagojevich even if not every charge is very solid. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:37 am: If you watch the CBS tape of Reinberg, he is biting his lip until it bleeds to keep from categorically saying that Johnston knew he was being shaken down to get the bill signed. That’s smart, he’s being a good lawyer for his client. But Johnston won’t have that option when he testifies at the criminal trial. I also think Blago said enough about the Wrigley/Trib deal, when coupled with the tape, that the feds will be able to establish a shakedown attempt. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:39 am: BTW, Blago missed his big chance yesterday when the Senators were asking their pointless questions to the FBI agent that couldn’t answer any of them. He should have had an attorney there hammering the fact that the trial is unfair because his jurors can’t get any of the answers they are requesting. Another words use the Senators own questions against him. Big opportunity missed. - Smack-o-cratic - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:39 am: I just read through the transscripts of Campbell Brown’s interview and thought she did a very good job. A little soft near the end on his poetry thing. - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:48 am: I hope Ellis has someone going through all those TV interviews. He should introduce some of it (like the Maddow piece) into evidence. It just seems like the right thing to do. - Smack-o-cratic - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:50 am: MADDOW: Did you tell them to layoff? - Blago Sphere - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:53 am: {Johnston’s attorney Dan Reinberg says his client never made an inappropriate campaign contribution and when asked for one in exchange for the governor’s support on a gaming bill, Reinberg says his client passed. Asked if Johnston realized he was the subject of an apparent shakedown attempt, Reinberg said, “Well, he certainly was put in a horrible spot by virtue of this request, and yes he understood the request… let me just say this. He was not comfortable with the request.”} In the absence of a tape of the Governor making a call to Johnston directly, the “request”, and suggested shakedown were perpetrated by “Lobbyist 1″ but not necessarily the Governor. The other tapes may suggest a conspiracy to which they want to attach the Governor, but in the call involving him, the Governor indicated that the pledge of a substantive contribtion was made almost a year earlier, and had not yet materialized. The Governor also never indicated a threat to the lobbyist not to sign the bill in question, and in fact indicated that he would schedule a bill signing, but did not attach any conditions to signing, or not signing the bill. Also, while he may have felt that he was placed in a “horrible spot” by virtue of this “request”, the reality is that the bll passed both chambers with a veto proof majority in each. Even if the Governor had exercised his veto on the bill, the legislature has shown no hesitattion to over-ride the Governor’s veto even in the immediate past, so any perceived vulnerability to a veto would have only been in the imagination of the person receiving the “request”. The Governor would have also placed himself in the un-enviable position of having to rationalize a veto of legislation that he had already signed two years earlier, and in so doing made public comments at that time about how it was the right thing to do to help the beneficiary industry. If he is scheduled to be a witness in the criminal trial, the USAO is certain to ask about the $100K contribtution made within 30 days of the passage of the original legislation, as well as any pledge made for another one in 2007, or 2008, as well as any conditions suggested as part of that pledge as well. The defense is liable to go back and demonstrate a history of sizeable contributions by the Contributor, and others similarly situated that benefitted from the legislation, as far back as the Governor’s initial campaign in 2002. The tapes now may merely show an accelerated effort to collect on what could be construed as a previously pledged receivable, the pledge of which was made long before the legislation in question was even passed. The rationalization of the collection effort could only be that it was done in order to include that revenue in the current year. Large campaign funds it can be said are a candidates best protection from a primary; or general election challenge, and the anticipation may have been that the race for the Governorship would have commenced shortly after the Presidential election, or in reality, it potentially already had, so the collection effort was no different than the campaign fundraising efforts of any potential future rivals as well. On the face the tapes look circumstantial, and don’t appear to meet the threshold of proving a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. They need to - Lou Grant - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 9:59 am: Greg Tajeda at Chicago Argus wrote a thoughtful piece on how this “media circus” has moved the public attention from Springfield to the Governor. http://chicagoargus.blogspot.com/2009/01/blagojevich-winner-in-media-war.html “BY ALL RIGHTS, the attention of political geeks across the country ought to be on the Statehouse in Springpatch.” Instead, we’re all talking about his hair being tossled by someone on The View. - Scooby - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 10:03 am: My computer sometimes acts goofy so I’m not 100% sure, but I think the last article in the rundown, the Kass article is a bad link. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 10:06 am: @LG, The only people talking about the guv’s hair being tossled don’t count because they wouldn’t focus on the trial anyway. No worries. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 10:13 am: Although I agree the Governor may have changed some of the spotlight from the Capitol to himself, he shouldn’t have. This impeachment trial really is a farce and could have been layed bare by defense counsel. I wonder if the Governor can appeal based on making so fundamental an error that he is entitled to a rematch. He was a fool not to listen to Genson. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 10:15 am: ===This impeachment trial really is a farce=== That’s a pretty bold statement. Explain, please. - chiatty - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 10:17 am: The Johnston stuff is unseemly, without a doubt. To me, this is the kind of evidence that would tend to build a case for impeachment. If the Children’s Memorial stuff materializes in a meaningful way, that would also aid the argument for impeachment. If they do enter solid proof that Blagojevich knew that his subordinates were telling people that they couldn’t do state business without substantial contributions and then establish that they got business after making those contributions, the case for impeachment would seem to have been made, regardless of Rod’s inability to put on exculpatory evidence about the most sensational charge (the Senate seat sale). - Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 10:23 am: Thanks for calling me on that, Rich. I didn’t think it would be this farcical till I saw these Senators yesterday asking question after question they knew couldn’t be answered. If it is important enough to ask the question during the first ever Illinois impeachment trial and all you get is, sorry, can’t help you there, how can you reach a verdict. The reason I think it is farce is because you don’t need to ask the question-the answers are already plain and obvious-at least to me, but they just want to make some political point or another. I think a good defense counsel could have really gone to town on them. - Irish - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 10:40 am: Isn’t it a sad case of affairs when we have sunk to the point in this state and country when a leader who swore to uphold the laws and the constitution can threaten people’s jobs in exchange for monetary gain, make a committment to hand out taxpayer dollars in exchange for a personal payoff, and withold needed money from sick children because some one did not pay him off, and people are actually saying this is a weak case. If you are not totaslly disgusted by this and you can see very little wrong with it, that speaks to your own integrity. - Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 10:45 am: I think a good defense counsel could have really gone to town on them. If a good, or any, defense counsel had bothered to show up, the nature of the trial might be different, too. - chiatty - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 10:57 am: Defense counsel, of course, would have changed the tenor of this proceeding in a dramatic, yet entirely ineffective way. The result, for many reasons, which have been endlessly chronicled, has long been foretold. For that reason, the governor’s future legal situation will be less precarious that it would have been had he vigorously challenged impeachment. For him, this is NOT the hill to fight and die on. That one is located on South Dearborn Street in Chicago. - Say WHAT? - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 11:06 am: If i were a betting person I would bet he shows up for closing arguments. All eyes and cameras are on Springfield. How could he resist such temptation? Anyone know how much the national news media paid for those 17 interviews? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 11:08 am: ===If i were a betting person I would bet he shows up for closing arguments.=== I was thinking the same thing this morning. Wouldn’t that be a hoot? - Ghost - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 11:14 am: The Gov has had the same porblem his entire tenur in office. he hires good people to give him advice, then he won’t listen to them. Genson isjust another causalty in the long line of advisors who could porbably have steered the Gov away from many of the pitts to which the ov has fallen. Instead of lettings his guides lead him around obstacles he defiently marches forward into the gapiing hole. - Blago Sphere - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 11:14 am: He may show up for closing arguments with his resignation in hand; perhaps dated, and with an effective date one day prior, or the same date and an hour prior to his appearance, in order to deny them the opportunity to convict and punish an offical that is no longer holding office. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 11:51 am: The Tribune-Wrigley facet is important. If someone already said this, I apologize. Shaking the Tribune down is still corruption. Buying Wrigley Field for $1 and spending $250 million to renovate it has many angles. First, Sam Zell would have less to sell to the new owner because the state would have assumed ownership. This would have made the final bid considerably less and would have cost Zell and the Tribune Company enough money to possibly bring Zell to his knees. I am cynical enough to believe Blago would have done that at the expense of the taxpayers and other state operations costs. Second, God only knows how much Rod could have reaped in campaign dollars from contractors who wanted to renovate and pimp out Wrigley. Third, Rod could have insisted that Patti be hired either by the Cubs or a contractor in charge of Wrigley’s renovation. The Wrigley Field portion of last night’s interview was tough to watch. It should also give Bud Selig pause on new stadium construction costs. Who else has benefitted from corruption when public financing of a new stadium or a stadium renovation has occurred? - Blago Sphere - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 12:14 pm: Team Sleep; did you consider that Wrigley Field is functionally obsolete (both on and off the playing field) and as a result the sale to the state at a reduced price could have reduced the capital gains tax liability to the Tribune. The Tribune bought the whole shooting match from the Wrigley estate for $21.5 million, and Rickets is now offering them $900 million for it all. While I haven’t seen the terms of the deal yet, if the value of Wrigely was stripped out that could substantially reduce the cost of the buyer if the state were to bond over, and then incur the cost of the necessary “improvements” to bring it up to a state of the art facility for today’s MLB market. The buyer could then enhance their bid for the Cubs to the Trib, by eliminating the cost of the expense for the renovations which would be paid out in amortized rent over the life of the bonds. It could also reduce the needs for finanancing in order to get the deal done sooner. The buyer could also increase their price for the Cubs (God knows why they would) OR, and here’s the kicker, the Tribune could take less for the Cubs (reducing its tax liability further) in exchange for the longer term extension of the broadcast rights extension for WGN in order to take an overall enhanced payout over time. This is just wild eyed speculation, but I am confident there is a tax dodge or two built into this proposed deal somewhere. The painful reality no however, is the Trib needs as much cash as necessary to cover their own bond debt and avoid a default in the relative near future. I don’t think the $900M comes close to putting a full dent in that either. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 12:19 pm: BS, that was the best explanation of this abomination i’ve seen yet. Good job. - You Go Boy - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 12:23 pm: Somewhere in the testimony yesterday I heard something to the effect Blago doesn’t want to be governor for two more years (he state that himself, apparently)….well, much of his actions/inactions relative to this impeachment would validate that desire. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 12:25 pm: BS, I think that was the idea. More cash for Zell, the liability for the beautiful Friendly Confines for the state. What would the taxpayers get? Nothing but expenses. It was outrageous from the get-go. - jerry 101 - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 12:58 pm: Who is the governor to decide that keeping Wrigley Field in Illinois (I assume he meant to say the Cubs, though) is in the best interests of “the people”? Giving Sam Zell hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars when the State can’t even pay it’s bills doesn’t seem to be in the people’s best interests, and if it is, that should be up to the people’s legislature. It’s not like the Cubs needed the money anyway, not when they were just sold for a cool billion. Sam Zell just wanted his turn at the stadium feeding trough. Why own a team if you can’t get the government to cough up a couple of hundred million in welfare? - Ghost - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 12:58 pm: Word lets not forget, TII. - Lou Grant - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 5:56 pm: Blago Sphere, having watched Sam Zell operate it seems clear that cash is king for this man. He has made his money, in general, off of the purchase and sale of assets, not, in general, by operating them in a highly profitable manner. Now you might disagree with that assessment. A good counter argument is that the radio properties, for example, were subject to financial efficiencies. I don’t pretend to understand the economics of the broadcast business, however, recent challenges in the market are proving tough for Clear Channel to handle. So my point remains: in the long run, Zell is a buy and sell guy. His operations expertise is weaker. In other words, I wouldn’t expect Zell to be interested in a Wrigley/ Cubs deal that had long-term effects on the Tribune Co. performance. Zell is interested in avoiding taxes. That is clear. In the disposal of several properties in 2008 he arranged the deal in such a way as to significantly reduce the tax exposure of the Tribune Co. One of the methods involved the Tribune forming a partnership with the purchaser. For example, in the case of the Newsday newspaper, the Tribune Co. retains a small equity position. If my memory is correct, this is also true of the disposal of real property in Los Angeles and Baltimore. (The LA property may have involved a tax free trade of real property.) Indeed, the entire structure of the Tribune Co. deal was to first protect Zell in case of a problem and second to reduce the tax implications. So, Blago Sphere, your analysis was very interesting and thoughtful. Among all you are hinting at the only surprise, to me, would be Zell looking to secure the long-term operations of WGN Broadcasting. - Lou Grant - Wednesday, Jan 28, 09 @ 6:00 pm: Rich, The people talking about his hair are important. It’s the people who don’t know much, and believe this man’s statements of being for the little man, who corner your subscribers at the health club and scream at them… Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.