Conspiracy vs. completion
Monday, Jul 12, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Natasha Korecki at the Sun-Times has a very good article about the government’s case against Rod Blagojevich. Specifically, the lack of actual completion of so many of his grand conspiracies. Are those still crimes? Likely…
So as the prosecution’s case against Blagojevich winds down to its final days this week, the question remains: Did Blagojevich commit crimes, or was it all just talk?
“The government has charged offenses that do not require completion for them to win,” former federal prosecutor Patrick Collins said.
Collins put it this way: “In an attempted murder case, you don’t have to have a dead body; hiring the hit man is enough.”
And don’t forget, he did, in fact, put the kibosh on state grant money while he tried to extract a huge contribution from Children’s Hospital CEO.
Speaking of which…
Jurors are looking at a transcript of a Nov. 12, 2008, conversation between Rod Blagojevich and Bob Greenlee while defense attorney Aaron Goldstein dissects the ex-governor’s statements, word for word.
On the tape, Blago is asking his deputy governor about a proposed reimbursement rate increase for Children’s Memorial Hospital. Blago asks Greenlee a question about the rate change: “Has that gone out yet, or is that still on hold?”
Goldstein: “There’s something after the word ‘hold.’ What is that squiggly thing?”
Greenlee: “That is a question mark.”
Goldstein: “Do you know what a question mark is?”
Prosecutor Reid Schar has been objecting consistently. He does it again, stands up and stays standing. “I’m just going to keep standing,” he says to another lawyer.
Later, Goldstein asks Greenlee to define the word “could.”
“‘Could,’” you understood to mean ‘possibility,’ correct?” Goldstein asks. “‘We could pull it back’ means there’s a possibility this could be pulled back?”
“I’m getting kind of lost,” Greenlee responds.
Judge Zagel is wearily sustaining the prosecutor’s objections…
Goldstein asks Greenlee, a Yale grad, if he knows diff between “know” and word “no”. Judge Zagel has whole hand over his eyes
* Before the trial started, reporters revealed that the feds probably wouldn’t call Tony Rezko to the stand unless their case appeared to be falling apart. Rezko won’t be called, which gives you a good indication of how prosecutors feel about their case…
Even Blagojevich’s trial judge, James Zagel, said late last month that he considered Rezko a toxic witness who would damage whichever side chose to call him, and that he therefore didn’t expect him to be called.
“Rezko scares the prosecutors,” said Andrew Stoltmann, a Barrington Hills attorney who’s been following the case. “He is a wild card, and prosecutors tend to be scared away from wild cards.” […]
“Rezko and Levine are both wild cards,” said Richard Kling of the Chicago-Kent College of Law. “You really have no idea what they’re going to say.”
What prosecutors seem to be saying most clearly with their omission in the Blagojevich trial is that they don’t need them to make the case.
Dan Curry wondered aloud recently whether US Attorney General Eric Holder was making any decisions about whether to call Rezko to the stand. Curry, a longtime Illinois PR guy, has obtained a grant from the money bags behind the “Swift Boat” attacks on John Kerry to amplify his claims that Rezko is being ignored by the media.
* Roundup…
* Rod Blagojevich Trial Day 22: John Wyma on deck
* Feds prepare to rest Blago case without calling Rezko
* Tribune: The Blagojevich trials
* Zorn: Blago’s ‘Madigoon’ fantasy
* Jesse Jackson Jr. suffers collateral damage in Blagojevich trial
* U.S. Rep. Jackson releases Blago statement, but says little
* Goudie: When Blagojevich saw himself destined to be president
* Hinz: How could we have elected Blagojevich — twice?
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:36 am:
The rYAN whiners continue to remind us how they engineered the loss to Blagoof….we are grateful for their efforts.
And Rick Reed — just the guy to bring to the young female staffer orientation,
Keep it up.
Most would have moved to other careers.
Anyone else note WSJ refer to the judege as Zager in print edition.
Fire,Aim, Ready!
- Sacks Romana - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:37 am:
And the more it goes on, it seems like Robert might actually be innocent. I imagine it would be appealing to the jurors to declare one person innocent and the other guilty.
And of course Robert’s likely innocence stems directly from Rod being so directly involved in all the plots and plans. Robert’s non-participation and fairly sound defense will continue to provide a huge contrast to Rod’s for the jury.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:48 am:
===And the more it goes on, it seems like Robert might actually be innocent.===
Based on what?
- just sayin' - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:49 am:
Maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention, but so far at least the fed’s case has been much weaker than I was expecting. For example I still haven’t heard anything that offends me as much as Bill Brady casting votes in the state senate that he knew were designed to help him financially. That’s a public official putting his hand in the cookie jar in a very direct way. In Blago’s case it’s mostly very indirect stuff.
But the bottom line is if The G wants to bring someone down, they’ll bring someone down. They have so many resources at their disposal. Look hard enough at most anyone’s life (like a tax return) and you can find something to turn into a federal case.
Blago was never smart enough to stand the scrutiny a top official gets. People on the lower rungs often get away. It’s why Tony Soprano resisted being the official Boss for as long as he could. Being the Boss means The G is watching you 24/7. Blago should have known that.
- Rob_N - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:50 am:
The GOP-hired DuPage Elections Spokesman (Dan Curry) might want to hold his fire on Rezko since Mark Kirk took a cool grand from the guy back in the day.
Can’t say that about Giannoulias.
–
As for the US Atty’s approach, didn’t they specifically state they arrest Blago when they did because he was in the process of committing a crime but they wanted to thwart it before it went to full completion?
- Berkeley Bear - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:51 am:
I’m not sure, but I suspect the defense is trying to drag out the cross of Greenlee (a generally good guy who actually has a conscience according to people who worked with him) just to give themselves a little more time to prepare whatever defense strategy they have. Judging from their efforts to date, the Adamses need all the time they can get. They wanted a week’s recess after the prosecution closed, and Zagel (correctly) shot it down. This sort of word by word examination can have value if there’s a point or the witness is combative (Clinton on the meaning of “is” for example) but right now it just seems like the case is going faster than they expected.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:54 am:
But underscoring grievances against Blagojevich is not the site’s main purpose. Instead, Curry said, “What we’re trying to do is point out that the Blagojevich trial says a lot more about Barack Obama than the local and national media are suggesting.”
“In other words,” Curry continued, “I think the national media are tending to downplay his connections to the political culture in Illinois and to Blagojevich and we think that is being understated and we’re pointing out areas in which the connection is much stronger than it is being portrayed.” - Dan Curry
So Dan Curry is focusing on the President during the Blagojevich trial and wondering why there isn’t more news being made. It appears to be a case where the news is being made about Blagojevich, because it is a Blagojevich trial.
Curry’s website and focus are unhealthy, but par for the course when considering an earlier political job of his in oppositional research.
A person who focuses on the foilables of those they consider political opponents misses a much bigger picture of the reality everyone else sees. They miss a sense of balance. The begin to see conspiracies, which this view often creates.
Curry’s narrow mindedness goes beyond partisan narrow mindedness, in that his lack of political balance goes deeper. The more he focuses on his specific narrow field, the blinder he becomes, and the more he justifies to himself his lack of balance by claims of recognizing what doesn’t exist outside his narrow focus.
He becomes an “expert” in his narrow research, and like most experts fails to recognize how his specialized field of expertise doesn’t give him knowledge, but instead just makes him trivially incorrect most of the time.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:56 am:
See also, Rob_N above, as another example.
- Sacks Romana - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 12:00 pm:
@Rich
Based on one of today’s posts:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/blago/2010/07/robert_blagojevich_attorney_ro.html
It seems like Robert probably knew a lot, but wasn’t really involved in all the plotting and decision making. The Jesse Jackson reveals from last week were the most damaging to him so far, but if he can beat that, I think he beats everything. All the recordings are just so self-centered on Rod, on what he wants to do, on what he thinks he can get, that I think Robert’s defense team can really play down his involvement.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 12:04 pm:
That’s only one part of the case, SR.
- Stooges - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 12:16 pm:
I guess having your biggest supporter write checks to your wife that total over $100,000 for work she didn’t do isn’t enough guilt for some people. No hand in the cookie jar there.
I guess when the government exposes several conspiracies to extort money from business men in return for performance of specific duties isn’t sufficient guilt either.
I guess exposing a scheme that started before someone is even elected, and that person goes on to set up a campaign fund raising machine that involves pay to play on such a grand scale that the machine raised $20 million for re-election is just business as ususal. So is giving out investment contracts to your cronies in return for thousands of dollars.
This guy is so guilty it’s sad. Just imagine if the could prove all of the kick-backs and contributions that he got as a result of appointing people to various boards or jobs with the state. And the feds only started listening the last few months of his career as governor. He and his administration have committed untold crimes against businesses and citizens of this state, and the sooner he is in bright orange the better.
- Rob_N - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 12:27 pm:
Even when Van and I agree (re Curry’s misplaced but well-funded ire) he’s disagreeable.
Why is that Vanilla?
- Carlos - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 12:29 pm:
Actually I feel very sorry for his cellmate whoever that will be. Could anyone even imagine being locked up 24/7 with Rod?
I guess the big question is will Rod even do some time or a lot time?
- Cupsenballes - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 12:57 pm:
A lot, I’m beginning to think.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 1:34 pm:
I think Blago’s expenditures on clothes will do him in with the jury, just as Ryan’s lack of bank transactions did him in.
Still, it appears Blago will testify. He can probably sink himself better than the federales.
- D.P. Gumby - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:40 pm:
It’s looking more and more like Zagel erred in not separating Robert’s trial from Rod’s as so little of the evidence has related to Robert. He will have a strong argument about lack of a fair trial as a result.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 3:51 pm:
When it comes to Kirk and Giannoulais, you are like a persistent used car salesman who can’t change a subject if it means possibly losing the sale.
Where does it say anything about Kirk or Giannoulais in Rich’s opening paragraphs? How could anyone take what he wrote and end up bashing Kirk?
You could. Just as Curry can see a tie in with Obama in everything Blagojevich does, you see a tie in with Kirk. What I wrote about Curry’s state of mind regarding Obama, I believe could apply to you too on Kirk.
Whenever I read your name, I can guess that it is some kind of Kirk bashing without even reading it.
- SpringpatchProud - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 5:49 pm:
“But the bottom line is if The G wants to bring someone down, they’ll bring someone down. They have so many resources at their disposal. Look hard enough at most anyone’s life (like a tax return) and you can find something to turn into a federal case.” .. just sayin
The federal government couldn’t put my family in jail if they went over our books with a fine tooth comb. You must lead a shadier life than you should be JS if this is your personal outlook on most individuals in Illinois.
Blago’s conversations, financial dealings with Rezko & all, plus his actions are criminal and improper BECAUSE he was a seated Governor and planned what to do with criminal intent albeit simple mindedness at its best.
Citizens cannot plead ignorance of the law as a legal defense and neither will Blago’s defense team get away with this silly defense. Blago was an attorney and a congressman … so even if “ignorance of the law” was a legal defense he would not be exonerated based on the defense. Let’s not forget that Blago should have known what the law was and what the job of governor entailed based on his “education,” legal and governmental prior experience to becoming governor plus the oath of office he promised to uphold at two inaugurations.
Blago is a baffoon that is going to get a better sense of reality once he dons a federally provided jumpsuit - quite a bit different reality check than from the two reality shows he and Patti have appeared on the past year.
- justsickofit - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 8:18 pm:
@springpatchproud
“Let’s not forget that Blago should have known what the law was and what the job of governor entailed based on his “education,” legal and governmental prior experience to becoming governor plus the oath..” As should Thompson (testimony re: telling a cement contractor to “get political”) and Ryan and Edgar (Levine testimony at the Rezko trial that he had the same agreement with them as with Blago, to vote the way they wanted him to on Board business). It is the problem, here. Business as usual, and when the jury hears of a 1.5 M unsolicited offer from a congressman’s camp, or Rahm passing a “grateful and thankful” message or Rahm to offer help in a Madigan deal, or Katz offering fundraising help in exchange for VJ getting the seat, or failure of crucial witnesses to appear, or paper trails proferred — do you think the jury might start to wonder about business as usual?
- Rob_N - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 9:11 pm:
Vanilla whines, “Just as Curry can see a tie in with Obama in everything Blagojevich does, you see a tie in with Kirk.”
Substitute the name Mark Kirk for George W. Bush and my original post still rings true.
The only difference is Mr. Bush isn’t running for US Senate in Dan Curry’s homestate and I was pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in Mr. Curry’s swiftboat-funded quest.
As for your lament that I only discuss Mr. Kirk… check Rich’s thread on Quinn and Brady’s responses to the Arizona immigration law. I haven’t mentioned Mr. Kirk once.
Perhaps you’re simply believing things as you want to see them rather than seeing things for what they really are.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:27 pm:
Substitute Bush for Kirk?
Oh please, that is so ten years ago.
Even a blind pig occasionally finds a truffle. Curry got lucky. His success with the Swiftboaters has warped his little mind. He is seeing bogeymen where none exists.
Just like you do with Kirk, and W. Boo!
I will say this about your persistent Kirk bashing. You are a good source of the latest anti-Kirk spin. I hope you are aware that you need new ammo. That military stuff has expired for now. Come up with a new anti-Kirk rave soon. Good luck!
- Rob_N - Monday, Jul 12, 10 @ 11:40 pm:
Huh?
Just today Kirk refused to release his full military records (again) so it’s unclear why you think it has “expired”.
Has Rezko-talk now “expired” too?
Like Mr. Curry, your spin is weak Vanilla. Nobody’s buying it.
- DuPage Dan - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 12:37 am:
I am.
- Birdseed - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 9:41 am:
This place needs a Thunderdome….. “Two men enter, one man leaves.”