* 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?