80 Comments - Beowulf - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:05 am: If I was Rod Blagojevich and I (and my legacy) was sliding down the chute toward the “Underworld”, I would want to go down fighting to the very end in order to clear my name. For all of Rod’s efforts to play the fool, he is a likeable guy when you meet him in person. If I were him, I would want to shout from the mountain top my version of events that had led me to this moment in time. He is only going to get “one shot” at clearing the record.He would be wise to refuse being intimidated by his own defense into remaining silent. - Wensicia - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:19 am: He should, it may be his only chance to prove he’s too delusional to have willfully committed these crimes. - PublicServant - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:23 am: He’s been testifying for years already. May as well be on the witness stand under oath. - Gregor - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:41 am: I want him to testify, because he’s not as good as he thinks he is, and stripped of the tools and techniques of distraction and obfuscation he was able to employ as a candidate and governor, it will be highly entertaining to watch him figuratively flayed open like a high school frog dissection project, under direct examination, under oath. Rod really doesn’t have a case. His defense strategy has been to obfuscate and bamboozle witless jurors with irrelevancies, and when he has to make a case on the actual merits, he’s going to fall, hard. I am not ashamed to say I will find this highly entertaining and satisfying. - tomhail - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:57 am: Yes he should, because of all the times he has promised that he would. Ha! He won’t….. - Roadiepig - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:58 am: Yes-once the prosecution gets him under oath and starts hammering him with questions Rod no longer gets to choose what subjects get covered like he does while on talk shows and photo ops on TV. Only negative is the last of cameras in Illinois courtrooms. Be great theater to watch… - Sonic Infidel - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:08 am: I have to agree with the older Blagojevich. If those tapes that supposedly show Rod’s innocence aren’t being released, he needs to take the stand and tell us just how we should interpret his seemingly damning comments. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:17 am: I would have him testify. He tends to babble in a stream of consciousness way which would be important in diluting some of his comments on tape. If the jury thinks he is a chatterbox with megalomania, they may let him slide on everything. - Small Town Liberal - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:22 am: Yes, but mostly just because I’d be entertained by reading about it. Also though, I think if you’re going to keep whining about not being allowed to get your side of the story out there, you should be willing to back it up with testimony. - 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:25 am: I voted no, simply because I think he should just plead guilty to whatever charges will get him out of federal prison the soonest. He may get to filibuster on direct, but no way will the prosecution and judge let him meander on during cross examination. Plus, his testimony will largely consist of calling Rezko, Monk and Harris liars. Everybody is lying except Rod, right? Sort of like his hero Nixon. I just want this over. He was on Fox 32 last night. The lead “story” at 9pm, in the studio, with Larry Yellon helping him taint a new jury pool. Enough already. - Angry Republican - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:28 am: Yes, but only because it would be entertaining. As a defense tactic it is very high risk, but I can’t think of anybody better at obfuscation than Rod. The next question will be what happens if he is acquitted a second time? - Ray del Camino - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:37 am: Yes, because they’ll either roast him under oath or he’ll perjure himself. Either way, we get one last little show and then he goes away. - Hoping for Rational Thought - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:38 am: Yes - he keeps claiming he has nothing to hide and that he is innocent. He also has want to tell his side of story in court since this began. So let’s get it over with. - phocion - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:38 am: AR, Rod wasn’t acquitted the first time. He was found guilty on one count, and there was a hung jury on the remaining counts. Acquitted means not guilty. That didn’t happen. Oh, and he should testify because (1) he promised he would in countless intereviews; (2) the public has a right to hear his version, under oath; (3) it will be quite entertaining. - How Ironic - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:41 am: He is a legend only in his own mind. I would love to see him admonished to ‘answer the question’ over and over as he tried to weseal out of them. It would be wonderful. But it will never happen. - Captain Illini - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:52 am: Absolutely. Misery loves company, and their gonna throw him a big party once the verdict is read. Without his testimony, there may still be doubt, but with it, there will only be crystal clear conviction of his twisted logic and Quiotic virility… - And I Approved This Message - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:52 am: Purely for entertainment purposes I would say yes. But as a legal strategy it could be calamitous. Don’t do it. Too risky. - zatoichi - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:57 am: Might as well. He has been ‘testifying’ (in the fire and brimstone preacher sense) to anyone who will listen forever. It’s time to testify in the legal sense where someone can dispute him and get to the next chapter. If he has the goods that will clear him, where was it last time? Provide the proof and support not just why his version is correct, but how the prosecution is definitively wrong. He should go down swinging. In my head, Burt Lancaster would have been great in the movie version. - CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:00 am: Yes The best chance he has to prove he is a sociopath and use the mental defective defense at sentencing is to get up there and rave about all his good deeds and the evil people who tried to stop him. If he doesn’t testify the government might decide to go after IcePrincessPatti and then the kiddos will need two dogs. - LakeviewJ - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:02 am: I’d rather the whole spectacle end faster. Perjury charges against Rod won’t help expedite things. - Palatine - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:09 am: I believe that he was Ram Rodded and he should stand up for himself. - amalia - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:13 am: No. that’s what my lawyer advises. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:14 am: Certainly. Let the jury see who he is….. - Cincinnatus - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:20 am: No, for all the reasons being given by those saying yes… - just sayin' - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:24 am: Yes, go for it. I don’t think he has much to lose. Sure, he opens himself up to a lot of things, but the Feds have the means to bleed and then crush him anyway. His personality is his best defense, and while he is a sleaze, this thing really starts looking like governement overkill especially given all the other dirty politicos walking free around this state that no one says a peep about. - OneMan - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:25 am: For entertainment reasons only he should testify. - NIref - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:25 am: Yes, there is nothing good on TV. - Quizzical - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:39 am: Gregor put it best, so from the perspective of someone who would likely find his testimony and cross examination very entertaining, he should testify. As a legal strategy, I think it would be insane for him to testify. - South of 70 - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:44 am: It’s the bottom of the 9th. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:45 am: Yes, otherwise we’ll never find out what happened to that quart of strawberries. - Aldyth - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:51 am: If I was his lawyer, I’d be wanting to cut a deal with the prosecution to save everybody time and money and get the least time in prison possible for my client. If Rod refused that, I’d want to duct tape his mouth shut for the duration and keep him as far from the stand as possible. As a citizen of Illinois, I’d like to see him on the stand and hear what he has to say, just for the entertainment value. - Stooges - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 9:59 am: From a strategic standpoint he should not testify. Just recall how he looked when that reporter grilled him about the $1500 check he got for his daughter’s birthday. His lies don’t stand up well to tough questions, he’d be babbling incoherently by the end of his cross examination. - Just the Facts - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:03 am: He shouldn’t testify. He would make a terrible witness. He would not be succint. He would wander off the subject and would be ripped to shreds on cross and in the process of being cross-examined he would likely lose his composure. Having said that, I hope he does testify. - wishbone - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:28 am: I don’t care if he testifies or not, or if he is found guilty or not. What is clear from the tapes is that he did not give a damn about the welfare or interests of the people who elected him. He is one low class, ignorant SOB totally lacking any sense of public service. - Quiet Sage - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:31 am: He has nothing to lose. If he doesn’t testify, the previous trial will essentially repeat itself, except the prosecution will be able to correct all the tactical mistakes it made before. Given his personality, Blago’s testimony is bound to be unpredictable and surprising in many respects. The feds are great planners and organizers, but poor improvisers, and with sharp counsel Blago may be able to throw the prosecution off base. - D.P. Gumby - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:32 am: Yes, though it is against my best legal judgment. If the Pros. is as ham-handed as they were is the first trial and if Rod can control himself, he can indeed be his own best weapon in telling his side of the story and win over the jury. Plus, he’s got little else. - gathersno - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:45 am: He would be stupid to do so, but like many others, I hope he does! - chiatty - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:01 am: I’m sure the temptation will be even greater to testify this time, because he was one juror away from getting convicted on a bunch of counts without testifying last time. I don’t know if it would help him much. It’s awfully hard to avoid conviction in political cases in the courthouse. - Ghost - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:06 am: Yes I would pay to watch Blago be subject to cross examination on his version of events. - Ghost - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:06 am: Yes I would pay to watch Blago be subject to cross examination on his version of events. - Boone Logan Square - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:06 am: Speaking as an observer, I advise him to testify purely for the entertainment value. If I am a person looking after his well-being, I say he should avoid taking the stand at all costs. Given his tendencies, he would guarantee a perjury conviction at his next trial. - fisher - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:11 am: Yes. It would be interesting to see how his sworn testimony compared to his public ramblings and how far he’d be willing to test the court’s patience under oath. - Cincinnatus - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:16 am: Without testifying in his first trial, the only thing that the Feds were able to prove is that Rod lied to the FBI in some 2004 interview. I see no reason why he would testify in this trial… - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:33 am: I just signed on again. It looks like you are giving me the opportunity to vote a second time. Is there a flaw somewhere? I know this Q of the Day is not to be taken all that seriously, but has this also happened on other Questions you have asked in the recent past? I’m tempted to vote a second time just to see what happens but I’ll hold back my Chicago roots DNA for now. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:34 am: Never mind my last posting. It just put up how everyone was voting. For some reason it did not go directly there but eventually did so after 2-3 minutes. - Thoughts... - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:37 am: This spectacle can’t go away fast enough for me, but really, like any good show, it needs a an over-the-top finale. Rod testifying provides that, so for entertainment value, I say absolutely. I know lawyers would advise against him testifying, but the flip side is he’s been convicted of perjury, faces up to five years, and the judge can consider all of the evidence at trial (even on counts that were hung) when sentencing, so I’d be surprised if he didn’t max out. In that light, he may as well testify as he has nothing to lose since he’ll be spending a few years at Oxford or Terre Haute in any event. - Chicago Cynic - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:50 am: For entertainment value, yes. For legal strategy - hell no. - Anonymous - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:54 am: No, bec it would be a disaster for his defense. he is delusional. he has been telling evolving versions of the same lies for so long he sincerely believes them. he has polished his phrasing, and spits it out high speed, which makes good sound bites and good tv clips. now, would i like him to? sure, as others have said for the entertainment value, and bec it would show he is not as smart as he thinks he is. use rahm as a go between to pitch a deal to he-madigan to name she-madigan to the senate? please. or name valerie jarrett and he gets hhs? really? rich has documented over the months blago knew he was under investigation, and likely being bugged, so he tried to posture on the tapes for later use. if the prosecution can put on a more coherent case the jury can see thru blago bs. they came so close last time on several charges. - Nuance - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:58 am: Yes, a real chance to show his “testicular verility”. - soccermom - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 11:59 am: (In a wispy voice) Oh, Word, you are always the best…. - soccermom - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 12:02 pm: But seriously — I think the feds were holding back some of their evidence to use in rebuttal in the first trial, and Rod’s legal team played them. The G won’t make that mistake again. So the question becomes — will Rod roll the dice and try to charm the jury after the Feds throw the kitchen sink at him? It may be his only option for a hung jury, if the Feds play hardball in the early innings this time. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 12:11 pm: I doubt if Blago would have to worry about perjury charges for taking the stand. Not that he wouldn’t lie, but perjured testimony is probably the least prosecuted crime in America. If he lies and is convicted, the federales would let it go. If he lies and is acquitted, none dare call it perjury. - 3rd Generation Chicago - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 12:19 pm: I saw him on the news last night, on Fox in Chicago with Larry Yellen interviewing him and Rod Blagojevich sounded convincing, believable, and confident. Depending on the jury, if he goes on the stand and is like he was on last nights interview, he may have a deadlocked jury again. - Huh? - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 12:51 pm: Wordslinger - Nice reference to the “Caine Mutiny”. Does anybody know if blago has a set of ball bearings to roll around in his hand during the trial? - Cincinnatus - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:01 pm: - Huh? - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 12:51 pm: “Does anybody know if blago has a set of ball bearings to roll around in his hand during the trial?” Those would be “testicular virility” bearings, no? - Coach - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:01 pm: Rod’s been telling the world for the last two years that he can’t wait to testify in his own defense and prove he’s just an aw-schucks, hard-working guy who pulled himself by the boot straps and tried like hell to fight off all the evil villains of Illinois politics in the name of helping all the little people. So, yes, the man needs to get up there on the stand and tell us all about it - if only so that we can all finally be relieved of his dribbling, pathetic threats. - Hotel Ibiza - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:11 pm: Is it “Ground Hog Day” again? - SR - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:13 pm: “There are a ton of tapes that are favorable to Rod that can make a definite reasonable doubt argument. He’s all over the place in the tapes,” He must be referring to those “missing” tapes. Seriously, this is how I would expect a family member to feel, especially one who is not a lawyer and who is mad at the D.A. for being dragged into this. I hope his brother testifies, but from a legal standpoint I don’t think he should. There is nothing in those tapes that can magically erase, explain, or minimize his incriminating words and actions. - Responsa - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:17 pm: Yes. He said he would testify. He promised he would. People-especially politicians- should keep their promises. - Justice - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:18 pm: It would make for interesting prime time reporting. I for one would think his ego would get him into trouble as he wouldn’t know when to shut up. I say go for it….we need the final bit of entertainment before they lead him off in cuffs, protesting, protesting, protesting! It will be an Up Day! - SR - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:21 pm: ===I saw him on the news last night, on Fox in Chicago with Larry Yellen interviewing him and Rod Blagojevich sounded convincing, believable, and confident.=== Unfortunately for him there are tapes where he sounds just as convincing, believable, and confident about shaking down people for campaign contributions. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:30 pm: –”Does anybody know if blago has a set of ball bearings to roll around in his hand during the trial?” Those would be “testicular virility” bearings, no?– Well done. Buy that man a cigar. For those looking to Blago for entertainment, I would direct you to a more wholesome and satisfying diversion, the young man from Englewood, Mr. Derrick Rose. His brilliance in athleticism and game smarts has been building all year and is now at the level where even non-sports-fans can appreciate them, like when Tiger ran away with his first Masters years ago. He get’s more amazing every game. Tune in tonight. - 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:39 pm: According to the Tribune, I’m not the only one tired of hearing him spout his nonsense in the media. The prosecutors objected to his recent antics and the judge is taking note. Here’s hoping that a gag order is forthcoming. - Cheryl44 - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 1:56 pm: I’d just like to see him gagged in the courtroom, like Bobby Seale was. - downstate hack - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 2:04 pm: yes, because we really didn’t get the maximum entertainment value out of the first trial. - Ghost - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 2:15 pm: forget the court room, lets have him sit for a televised interview by Rich. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 2:30 pm: I’m wondering how many people who voted “Yes” actually think it’s a really bad idea and want him to do it so he’ll be convicted. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 2:35 pm: –I’m wondering how many people who voted “Yes” actually think it’s a really bad idea and want him to do it so he’ll be convicted.== Do I want the guy who clearly on tape tried to shake down a baby cancer hospital to explain himself? Yes, indeed. I’m guessing most everyone, Rich. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 2:37 pm: Yeah. This could be a follow-up question for tomorrow. - Cincinnatus - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 2:45 pm: I read the question as asking for the wisdom of Rod testifying from the viewpoint of his defense. That was the only reason I could think of to vote NO… - Ghost - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 3:36 pm: Yep, thats pretty much why I voted yes - Not It - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 3:45 pm: He should testify simply because I would love the entertainment value. OMG it would be hilarious. He would go and on about Madigan and all sorts of other things. The government could pay-per-view it and make a killing to pay for the “expensive” cost of the trial. hahahahahaha - Wensicia - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 4:41 pm: Whether testifying helps or hurts him, depends on how well he does and how the lawyers play it. I don’t think staying off the stand helps his case, except for that one juror, he would have been toast. This time, the government’s case will be more refined, he might have to testify. - Lefty Lefty - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 5:12 pm: I voted yes because I believe that if you’re telling the truth, you should stand up and tell everyone. I tell my kids that, I tell my staff that. So if the former governor is telling the truth he should get up on that witness stand and tell us personally. And, well, if he isn’t telling the truth, that would be kind of interesting to watch too…. - steve schnorf - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 5:27 pm: As out of synch as this seems to be with most people on here, I would prefer that he not have to testify because there was no retrial. He’s been convicted, sentence him on that count and let it go. Its not the way of the USA in Chicago, but this spectacle has gone on long enough. Let him serve some time and go on with his life. All that is satisfied by going on with more trials is a desire for vengeance. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 5:41 pm: Schnorf, I agree. As vulgar as I find Blago, he’s not Jack the Ripper, and he’s also been gone for a couple of years now. His damage is done, Judge Zagel will surely give him some time, and our lives went on long ago. The federales have unlimited power. If they square you up, your life as you knew it, is over, innocent or guilty. They should only get one bite at the apple. - Park - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 6:30 pm: With the feds getting a redo, its his only chance to hang another jury. And I also would pay to see the cross-examination. - steve schnorf - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 7:38 pm: ws, what did Judge Roy bean do to the guy that killed the watch bear, shoot him, hang him, and fine him, wasn’t it? Yesterday’s version of today’s feds. - x ace - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 8:09 pm: No, if he takes the stand he will be shredded in cross examination . May well under pressure, say things more damaging than what he said on tape. Fed Pros ,without a doubt, got every statement he ever made anywhere indexed and ready to clobber him. They will be ready to shoot the lying fish in the barrel. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 18, 11 @ 10:45 pm: Schnorf, the whole proposition of federales political prosecution is so out of whack that it’s undemocratic and un-American. The idea that some appointed appartachik can pick and choose and bring unlimited resources to bear on some targets is lunacy. They lined up Fawell and his girlfriend three or four times before they flipped on Ryan. They lined up Chris Kelley three or four times before he ate the rat poison so he wouldn’t have to flip on Blago, You wanted Ryan? The IRS should have been enough. You wanted Blago? You really didn’ have to kill a schnook like Kelley. Despicable behavior by the federales. Which they have demonstrated before by employing a known murderer in John Christopher to open up an illegal dumping ground on the West Side to facilitate an entrapment on a bunch of dopey aldermen. Meanwhile, back on the LaSalle Street ranch, I could line you up floors of firms and traders who sent their clients’ money one way, while they bet the other side. Even with the sad and stupid repeal of Glass-Steagall, that’s a crime. Actions like that were illegal, crashed the world economy, and the federales are nowhere to be seen. I have no sympathy for Blago, but he’s not a threat to democracy. Pat Fitz, no matter how wholesome or well-intentioned, as the Eternal Ambitious Federal Inquisitor, certainly is. You’re done, Fitz. Thanks for cleaning out all the drug dealers and gang-bangers. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.