Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Is your primary pick taking the online advantage with eVoter?
Posted in:
* Not unexpected, but it’ll be fun to see what they do…
Federal prosecutors are promising to bring a new indictment against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to avoid issues connected to an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court on the scope of the federal “honest services” statute under which Blagojevich has been charged.
That would prevent the need to delay Blagojevich’s June trial date, they said.
In a filing today, prosecutors said they would handle the honest services question in the new filing against the former governor. The high court is expected to hear arguments tomorrow related to the limits of the federal statute. […]
[Assistant U.S. Atty. Reid Schar] wrote that, at most, some of the counts against Blagojevich would be dropped if the high court severely limited the use of honest services.
Happy early anniversary, Rod.
…Adding… It’s unclear whether this is related to the Sun-Times report the other day that the federal investigation of hiring abuses under Blagojevich is continuing. That report was mostly overlooked by the rest of the media, but it could prove important.
More…
“To avoid any unnecessary delay in the June [2010] trial date, the government anticipates requesting the grand jury return a second superseding indictment in the instant case towards the end of January 2010,” prosecutors wrote today. “At this time, it is anticipated that any new charges would be based on the underlying conduct that currently encompasses the pending charges.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:26 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Is your primary pick taking the online advantage with eVoter?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
They need to step back from this whole “honest services” thing, anyway. When an elected official has the temerity to tell us the truth about government programs & services needing tax money to operate, we vote them out of office.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:50 pm
Interesting. If Blago’s lawyers had not asked for the delay pending the ruling, he may have gone forward on the current indictment. If he was convicted under the honest services questions alone, he might hav been posied to have the case tossed, or at least those verdicts. Instead he has moved the prosecutor to shore up the weak spots in the indictment.
Not sure this was good strategy on Blago’s part.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 12:54 pm
Ghost, I don’t give POA’s legal team high marks for being the brightest minds.
Comment by Little Egypt Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:38 pm
Now is when Zalewski says he’s never heard of Rod.
Comment by yipes Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 1:44 pm
Hmmm, if the Feds are now doubting the basis of their indictment - what will be their theory now? I believe this case gets tougher for them, as they will not have the benefit of a vague and ambiguous theory by which to prosecute and can be applied to virtually any act a public official takes. The soap opera continues…
Comment by GetOverIt Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 2:58 pm
Methinks media may be surprised with SCOTUS decision re: honest services. Don’t be surprised if honest services statue remains status quo “or” if opinion re: statute gives more discretion to Prosecutors.
Comment by Area 2 Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:17 pm
Is anyone really surprised that just a few days after Blagoof steals his computers from his lawyers digs that the G announce plans for a new indictment.
The computer stunt reminded us of the days when rocks were thrown through the campaign office window to generate the “dirty trickster” story. swo gd
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:23 pm
I just heard a report on NPR saying that no new charges will be brought in the superceding indictment. The allegations of criminal activity will not extend beyond what has already been levied.
Comment by anon Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:34 pm
I think Rod confirming the fact he will testify was big news. Wow, what a bad idea. But inevitable, given the ego at work.
Every hotshot in the U.S. Attorney’s office is salivating over the opportunity to have months to prepare to examine and cross-examine Rod. Some sharp knives in that office.
Keep in mind, Judge Zagel will be the referee. I doubt very much that he’ll be dazzled by Rod’s act. Answer the question, Mr. Blagojevich.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:37 pm
Do the feds allow TV cameras in the court room? Rod’s testimony under cross exam will make his answer about the $1500 gift to his daughter look like Shakespeare.
Comment by Stooges Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 3:45 pm
Stooges: No on cameras in the court room, which is a shame. These would be must-see videos if he actually takes the stand.
Word: just because Rod swears he wants to testify doesn’t mean squat. In fact, I’ll donate $100 to Rich’s favorite charity if the former governor actually takes the stand in this trial.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 4:13 pm
–Word: just because Rod swears he wants to testify doesn’t mean squat. In fact, I’ll donate $100 to Rich’s favorite charity if the former governor actually takes the stand in this trial.
- Show quoted text –
Bet? You’ve got it, brother.
I’ve never been so sure of anything since I split those Sixes when the dealer had an Ace at Harrah’s in Joliet.
Seriously, you have a clear mind, so obviously your logic is impeccable.
But Rod will tesfify. No way, no how, could he pass that up.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 4:34 pm
It wouldn’t be a bet, since that might give Rich heartburn. Instead, Rich knows me, and I’d ask him to remind me off-line and tell me which charity I can send a check to if I’m wrong.
If I’m right, you are not obligated to do anything, so this isn’t really a wager per se. I’m confidant that Rod knows the actual stakes and when it comes time to testify, he and his lawyers will pass on the offer.
You said it yourself Word, nothing good can happen to him on the stand.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 4:41 pm
Oh God, could we please just get on with the trial? Either the G has him or they don’t. Let’s get on with it, shall we?
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 8:18 pm
If those Supremes had a half a mind among the whole gang they will toss the “honest services” along with lying to a federal agent and other prosecutorial gimmicks. Free George Ryan.
Comment by The Fox Monday, Dec 7, 09 @ 11:05 pm
[the government anticipates requesting the grand jury return a second superseding indictment in the instant case towards the end of January 2010]
[“At this time, it is anticipated that any new charges would be based on the underlying conduct that currently encompasses the pending charges.”]
However by the end of January, we may have concluded the investigation into additional allegations predicated upon information provided to us by cooperating witnesses:
John Harris
Lon Monk
Tony Rezko
which would instead allow us to bring a Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious indictment instead.
For now however we will stick with informing the court of a pending “superseding indictment” so as not to over promise and under-deliver, just in case any other potential prospective witnesses mysteriously turn up dead.
In the meantime perhaps those at the Illinois Tollway Authority should “never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Tuesday, Dec 8, 09 @ 4:59 am
Honest services is so vague that it cannot be defined in detail. The Court should toss it as unconstitutional. Justice Scalia already is against it, and if he adds theliberals, thats five votes.
BTW, didn’t George Ryan say he was going to testify too. But later said his lawyers wouldn’t let him?
Comment by Tom Joad Tuesday, Dec 8, 09 @ 9:16 am
@Commonsense in Illinois - Um, before a person can be tried they actually must be accused of doing something illegal. I think its a Bill of Rights thing…
Comment by GetOverIt Tuesday, Dec 8, 09 @ 9:16 am