Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn sticks by Randle… Again
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
*** UPDATE 1 - 11:19 am*** The jury has another question. Guesses?
More…
Judge James Zagel has called in the attorneys from both sides for a hearing on the question. Robert Blagojevich’s attorney Michael Ettinger said neither of the defendants will come to the courthouse for this hearing.
“Not yet,” Ettinger said.
*** UPDATE 2 - 11:45 am*** From Susan Berger’s Twitter page…
Jury wants Bradley Tusk transcript in its entirety… [Blagojevich attorney Sheldon Sorosky] objects to request. Judge will give transcript to jury… Judge will inform jury that cerain portions will be blacked out - those reflect outside presence of jury… Judge calls request “less than earth-shattering”
Among other things, Tusk testified about a $2 million grant that then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel wanted for a local school, but that Blagojevich wanted to hold up until Emanuel’s brother hosted a fundraiser…
Asked by the prosecution about the $2 million grant for the Chicago Academy, Tusk delivered what amounts to the biggest smoking gun yet in witness testimony. He told the jury that in the late summer of 2006, after receiving pressure from Emanuel, Tusk spoke with Blagojevich on the phone to urge him to authorize the grant money for the school. He said he told Blagojevich that Emanuel was “very upset” that the money had yet to be disbursed. In response, Tusk testified, Blagojevich told him that before he would release the grant money, he wanted Emanuel’s brother Ari, a wealthy Hollywood agent, to host a fundraiser for him.
“I got off the phone as quickly as I could,” Tusk testified, saying that he felt the directive was both “illegal and unethical.” Ultimately, he said he never conveyed the message to Emanuel, but instead contacted Blagojevich ally John Wyma and the governor’s legal counsel and ethics chief, Bill Quinlan. He said he told Quinlan, “You need to get your client under control.”
*** UPDATE 3 - 1:18 pm*** From Chicago News Coop…
That the jury requested Tusk’s testimony after last week’s note could be a better sign for the prosecution than the defense. Tusk’s testimony about a state grant to the Chicago Academy corresponds to one of the predicate charges in the racketeering count against Blagojevich, as well as Count 14 of the attempted extortion charge against the former governor.
More links to coverage of Tusk’s testimony are here.
* Somehow, I find this difficult to believe…
Republicans have tried to link Blagojevich to Democrats running for office this year, including Governor Pat Quinn and state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (though both candidates stress they had little to no relationship with the ex-governor). Despite that message during the trial, [Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady] insists he doesn’t plan to make a big deal about the trial’s outcome.
BRADY: You know, we could make a lot of political hay out of it. I don’t think we will, because [I’ll] just [be] relieved it’s over.
Brady adds, though, that a hung jury or not-guilty verdicts would keep the story alive.
We’ll see. Just a few weeks ago Chairman Brady was using Blagojevich’s decision not to testify as ammo against Gov. Pat Quinn and Speaker Madigan…
“Our system of justice gives Rod Blagojevich the right to remain silent. But his refusal to answer questions under oath also reveals more of the duplicity by which he campaigned and tried to govern. We shouldn’t be surprised. Rod ran as a reformer, with the full support of Pat Quinn and Mike Madigan. But it was all a sham.
* Presented without evidence…
Here’s a message to every Illinois political insider who’s prepared to throw up if the Rod Blagojevich trial results in a hung jury: you may hate Blagojevich, but ordinary people don’t.
From a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted July 26, 2010…
* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression of Rod Blagojevich?
3% Very favorable
6% Somewhat favorable
18% Somewhat unfavorable
70% Very unfavorable
2% Not sure
The vast majority of “ordinary people” hate the guy. Period. And that’s why I find it so hard to believe that the Illinois Republican Party won’t try to “make hay” out of the verdict, whatever it may be.
* Carol Marin looks at the stark differences between the late Dan Rostenkowski and the man who replaced him in Congress two years later…
As the now-legendary Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from 1981 to 1994, Rostenkowski was immersed in the detail and discipline of legislation. He wasn’t a scholar, but he had a graduate degree in tax codes. Plus a respect for process and the political opposition. He and President Ronald Reagan presented a powerful picture of how bipartisanship can make something big happen.
I don’t mean to romanticize the man or his methods. He could be cutthroat about power and preferred closed-door deals to the sunshine promoted by goo-goos.
Then again, Rod Blagojevich just pretended to be a goo-goo as he stepped from Congress to the governor’s office. But behind his closed door sat sleazy wheeler-dealers like Chris Kelly and Tony Rezko hatching scams they and Blagojevich couldn’t manage to pull off for big payoffs they couldn’t make materialize. Did they not know that even corruption sometimes requires some skill?
In the meantime, Blagojevich managed to alienate almost the entire Democratic Party — of which he was allegedly a member — as well as Republicans across the aisle. The result across his six years in office was gridlock on budgets and the gaping maw of a growing deficit.
The Chairman could work the halls of Congress but the Governor couldn’t work with anyone.
One was gruff but effective. The other glib but almost goofy. Rod wanted you to like him but Rosty didn’t seem to give a damn.
Abdon Pallasch looks at another angle to this. Rostenkowski called Michael Patrick Flanagan after losing the general election in 1994, then met with him and gave him some advice. After Blagojevich won in 1996? Not a word was heard…
Contrast that with the guy who beat Flanagan after one term — Rod Blagojevich. Blagojevich never called after winning, Flanagan said.
Flanagan asked Rostenkowski if Blagojevich ever called him, either.
“Not only did he not call me, but I called him and offered to give him some advice — he didn’t have time,” Flanagan recalled Rostenkowski saying of Blagojevich. “He never asked my advice on anything, either. I don’t think he’s much of an advice-taker. That’s part of his problem.”
* Roundup…
* Brown: Hung Blagojevich jury a loss for feds — but not for long
* Blagojevich Jurors Return to Discuss Wire Fraud Charges
* Blago jury deliberations entering 13th day
* Blagojevich trial: Questions loom as jury takes long weekend
* Blago Sides Likely Second-Guessing Selves: Greenberg
* Southtown Star: Let’s hear it for the jurors in Blago trial
* Zorn: The nauseating prospect of Blagojapalooza
* Blago trial not a tech breakthrough
* Time for a bleepin’ Blagojevich trial quiz
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:05 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn sticks by Randle… Again
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Even though Blago is very unpopular with most voters in Illinois, most voters don’t care if Blago had political ties to Rezko, Obama, Daley, Mike Madigan and others. The Republicans have much better issues to run on in Illinois. Look where the jobs are going.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100812-711540.html
Comment by Luke Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:14 am
The jury has another question. Clown cars have been mobilized.
Comment by And I Approved This Message Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:17 am
It is very dangerous for the GOP to come down hard on blago. There are a number of video clips with GOP memebrs standing beside blago demanding that madigan agree to the 54 billion capital projects bill.
They run a danger of tossing mud at madigan over this becuase he can toss right back the the GOP wanted to hand the the biggest pay to play govenor 54 billion in contracts to sell off, and Mike madigan was the only one brave enough to stand up to the GOP and the gov.
To many people climbed in bed with blago for any side to jump on this one, in my opinion. Blago is a giant double edged sword.
Even canidate Brady runs the risk of being hit with all those land votes to benefit his own properties if he wants to push the corrupt official angle.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:20 am
He wont make “hay” he will make bleepin GOLD
Comment by Madame Defarge Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:24 am
Jury Note: What show tunes would be appropriate to use when singing the verdict? We were thinking something from “Guys and Dolls,” but that may be too direct.
Comment by unclesam Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:24 am
I am going to guess it has to do with something with the rackettering count. By the way, Rich did you see Claypool’s new site against Berrios?
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:25 am
Looks like the jury wants the Tusk transcript.
Comment by Way Way Down Here Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:41 am
Jury question: What do we do if we are deadlocked on the question; “chicken or pizza” for lunch?
Comment by observation Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:45 am
so, guilty on 18 and 23 based on the transcript?
Comment by Amalia Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:55 am
what counts does the trasncript relate to and is it for the ones they haven’t decided or ones they have?
Comment by shore Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:55 am
–To many people jumped in bed with Blago for any side to jump on this one.–
Oh, I’m sure the Republicans are quaking in their boots at the prospect that Dems might be running campaigns accusing them of aiding in the Blago corruption machine.
If I were them, I’d sure hope the Dems take that route adn spend their cash to fully develop that theme.
Comment by Surely Not Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 11:57 am
It appears to be Count One, Racketeering. Thus one of the counts they had not agreed upon on Thursday.
This is what the S-T said of Tusk’s direct exam:
Former deputy governor, Bloomberg aide testifies on alleged school shakedown
By
Sarah Ostman
on June 21, 2010 2:17 PM | Permalink
Reporting with Natasha Korecki
Bradley Tusk, a onetime aide to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is testifying about an alleged shakedown scheme contained in the government’s indictment.
Tusk said while he was deputy governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich told him he wanted a message delivered to then-U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel: A $2 million grant for the Chicago Academy, a school in Emanuel’s district, was on hold unless his brother, Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel, held a fund-raiser.
Ari is the inspiration for the “Entourage” characte, Ari Gold.
Tusk said he didn’t deliver the message but called Blagojevich’s lawyer to tell him: “You need to get your client under control.”
Tusk also testified that when he came to Illinois from New York to interview for the deputy governor job, he first met with John Wyma and Chris Kelly — a fund-raiser and a roofer.
When it came to finding Gov. Blagojevich — that wasn’t always easy.
He said he had to hunt him down at his tailor and his daughter’s salon to sign bills.
Otherwise, Tusk, now 36, was often tasked with signing or vetoing bills.
Defense attorney Sheldon Sorosky is cross-examining. Tusk tells Sorosky his hire was free of clout — that Blagojevich hired a bright young man based on merits.
“I’d like to think so,” Tusk says, to some chuckles. Rod, though, is not smiling.
Comment by Linda Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 12:01 pm
Larry Yellen on Fox says it is count 14/
Comment by Amalia Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 12:04 pm
I think the subtext of Brady’s comment is that the verdict is irrelevant, politically. Few, if any, people doubt that Blagojevich did every oen of the sleazy things he’s being accused of – the question in the trial seems to be: did these actions actually violate the law. Voters have (or, at least, should have) a different standard. It doesn’t (or at least, shouldn’t) matter if what Blago did was illegal – it was clearly unethical and “corrupt,” in the generic sense of the word. And beyond that, Blago displayed zero level of competence and effectiveness – the one quality that might have excused his crimes in Illinois voter’s minds. So, yes, Brady and the entire GOP will continue to use Blago – but not necessarily the verdict of his trial - as a blunt club against the Dems. And, let’s be honest here: it would be political malpractice for them not to. It’s the same play that Blago ran against both JRyan and Topinka, and it was devastatingly effective. Unfortunately for all of us, Blago’s tenure was devastatingly disastrous for our state. Those who aided and abetted in his rise to power must now answer for it. Neither their impeachment vote, nor their resistance to his legislative agenda were conscience clearing acts of penance for them – the former was an act of political survival, and the later was an attempt to deal with a problem they themselves created.
Comment by grand old partisan Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 12:19 pm
Brady doesn’t need the trial or much of anything else. All he has to do is shut up and wait. The big question is if he can do that.
Comment by Bill Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 12:30 pm
I have a question for the jury: have any of you heard of Steve Bartman?
If this jury cannot reach agreement on a conviction, they will not be anonymous for long. They probably don’t realize it yet, but they are in for a ton of unwanted publicity if they do not convict Blagojevich on at least some of the charges.
Too many of us have been following the trial and have read the evidence. If the jury is hung, or God forbid, acquits Rod, we’re going to want to know what the heck happened in that jury room.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 12:31 pm
47,
Don’t threaten the jury. They might believe like a lot of us do that there were no crimes committed.
BTW, who’s Steve Bartman?
Tell Big Eddie Bill says hey.
Comment by Bill Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 12:35 pm
47 - It’s quite possible a jury could believe that crimes were committed but the government failed to meet its burden of proof. I am torn because I want Blago convicted if for no other reason than to wipe that smug smile off his face. However, if the jury finds that the government did not prove their case (rather than Bill’s belief that no crimes were committed), I will at least take solace that some jury (or jurors) actually followed the legal instructions and held the government to their burden of proof.
Plus, it’s very doubtful there will be a complete acquittal. So far the only mention is that they are hung on many counts. The government will retry him, this time not holding anything back for rebuttal, and will probably put on a stronger case.
Comment by Edison Parker Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 1:07 pm
I’m not criticizing the jury. Yet.
I am saying that if they can’t agree, they will be subjected to lots of interview requests asking why they reached (or didn’t) their decision. Again, I think the media intensity goes way up if the acquit. If they hang, then the focus will be on those who voted against conviction. And I am sure the media attention will be unwelcome.
But, as Ricky would say, some of these jurors got some splaining to do.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 1:42 pm
==they will not be anonymous for long==
It ain’t the jury that needs to worry. It takes about 10 seconds to see the Feds dropped the ball. We have testimony in this case that Blago extorted both Rahm Emanual and Obama, but neither of them knew about it. If you believe that I got some property on Lake Michigan in Champaign county I’ll sell you on the cheap.
If I am a congressman and a 2 million dollar grant for a project in my district is held up and I don’t know why, I should be fired, not made white house chief of staff. The feds put a bunch of witnesses on that told half truths and expect the jury to believe the part they want them to. It doesn’t work that way.
The feds spent less time on this case than they do on meth cases. Why? It is not because the prosecutors are not capable. Orders?
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 3:17 pm
===The feds spent less time on this case than they do on meth cases.===
LOL. Name one.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 3:21 pm
I completely concur with grand old partisan. And even if we could forgive the Dems for using a machine to bring Blago into office, we must not forgive them for keeping him there. Think how many people saw firsthand how inept he was, how little he worked, and the fact that he never even used a computer or a cell phone.
All of his staff should be charged with some form of negligence or fraud for letting that go on. This kind of thing really makes you question our form of government, and I don’t say that lightly.
Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 3:35 pm
Well, we know THAT’S not true!
Comment by George Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 3:44 pm
I suggest checking the federal court docket for the Southern District and most of the meth cases can be traced back several years with dozen’s and dozens’s of people who flipped. The cases are worked just like the Ryan case, you get one guy to flip, then another, and another.
With Blago, a few guys whose stories don’t match up were pranced accoss the stage. Half of the guys who were the lynchpins in the case didn’t have enough information to testify.
Pick any drug case ready for trial in Federal court and there will be more witnesses on the prosecution witness list than testified in this case.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 3:49 pm
How does that work, to “believe” a defendant is guilty but find him not guilty because the prosecution “did not prove the case”? Does that mean the “belief” is not rational, is based on something other than facts? If, as a juror, you started with an open mind and at the end of the trial you “believe” he is guilty then hasn’t the prosecution done its job? Hasn’t it pursuaded you with its evidence and arguments? Or is “belief” something different than that? If you “believe” what a person says to you doesn’t that mean you accept it as true? Then if a jury believes he is guilty shouldn’t they find him guilty? Or does believe have a different meaning here than anywhere else?
Comment by girllawyer Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 4:02 pm
ABC7 Meinecke (sp) says it’s count 14. Jeffrey Cramer, former
fed, says based on what they asked for he thinks it’s good
for the prosecution.
maybe time to put up a Fleetwood Mac/USC song…Tusk…..
Comment by Amalia Monday, Aug 16, 10 @ 4:04 pm
Pat Brady won’t make political hay? The guy who was hawking those cheezy Blago t-shirts with the elephant unplugging the hair dryer? I think that horse has already left the barn and I don’t think Pat Brady knows what the truth is anymore.
Comment by just sayin' Tuesday, Aug 17, 10 @ 9:29 am