Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Personal asides
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Posted in:
* As you know, last month Sangamon County Circuit Judge Patrick Kelley ruled that there was no evidence to support Gov. Blagojevich’s assertion that releasing federal subpoenas via the Freedom of Information Act to the Better Government Association would endanger ongoing federal investigations. Judge Kelley did give the governor time to rebut, and the governor’s office claimed earlier this month that they had new, “secret” evidence that backed up their claim that they couldn’t release the subpoenas….
Lawyers for the Democrat filed court papers Feb. 8 asking a judge to reverse his ruling of a month ago to release subpoenas from the U.S. attorney. “Newly discovered evidence” makes it important to keep the documents secret, they said.
But they also requested to file the documents in secrecy and no information about them was included in the filing.
* Well, yesterday, Judge Kelley again ruled against the governor when he refused to allow the “secret evidence” to be filed under seal, although Kelley did consent to two important redactions.
You can read that “secret evidence” at this link, which is a February 5th letter from US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to the governor’s office…
In response to your inquiry, the US Attorney’s Office has served various grand jury subpoenas on the Office of the Governor of the State of Illinois, seeking records pursuant to an official criminal investigation of a suspected felony being conducted by a federal grand jury. With two exceptions, noted below, the US Attorney’s Office continues to request that you not disclose the fact that the subpoenas have been served. Any such disclosure could impede the investigation and thereby interfere with the enforcement of the law. If you do not believe that you can comply with this request, I request that you contact me before making any decisions.
So, the US Attorney did, in fact, ask the guv’s office not to disclose the existence of the subpoenas.
Notice, however, that there was no absolute demand or order. Also, the disclosure of the letter by Judge Kelley now essentially moots Fitzgerald’s request.
Judge Kelley redacted the description of the two subpoenas that Fitzgerald claimed were OK to acknowledge to the public, which seems a bit ironic.
* Meanwhile…
Lawyers for Antoin “Tony” Rezko on Thursday made public nearly 40 names of people he allegedly recommended for state jobs, arguing that prosecutors should be barred from presenting the evidence at Rezko’s coming trial.
Rezko’s lawyers contended the government plans to offer the list at trial as evidence of Rezko’s involvement in state hiring, but the defense sought to block its introduction because the indictment doesn’t allege he influenced state hiring. […]
Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Thursday that he didn’t know anything about the “clout list” and hadn’t seen it.
* The alleged clout list is here. The Rezko defense motion is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 3:35 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Personal asides
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
MEH. So what?
I was expecting much better. Let’s get back to Levine and snorting coke and dropping e…now that’s worthy of reading.
Comment by DuPage Moderate Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 3:44 pm
C’mon, Rich? The US Atty asked that the document not be disclosed. Why is an ORDER from this office required to satisfy you? Couldnt one argue that the gov was cooperating by not releasing documents that he was asked not to release?
I think this validates the silence of the govs office on this issue to this point. His office was simply cooperating. Why go out of your way to p/o the bully?
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 4:08 pm
Because, anon, he has an obligation to comply with state law, which trumps a simple request by a prosecutor.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 4:10 pm
Fawell, Rezko — these guys with their lists. Mayor Richard J. was legendary for being able to recall from memory all the jobs and favors he had dished out to particular aldermen when putting the arm on them.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 4:10 pm
Now Patrick Fitzgerald is a simple prosecutor? Based on reading this blog, I thought he was God, or at least the savior of Illinois. Seriously, every law is subject to interpretation, and I think his office has worked within acceptable boundaries to ensure they are treated fairly, while at the same time respecting the power of Mr. Fitzgerald.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 4:15 pm
LOL. You should go into comedy, or law.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 4:16 pm
The very existence of a clout list such as this demonstrates, in a rather extreme way, another MAJOR difference between the Democratic and Green parties. Greens would hire based on merit–not quid pro quo.
Specifically, the party’s national platform states, “Political debate, public policy, and legislation should be judged on their merits, not on the quid pro quo of political barter and money.”
Let’s all keep this in mind when casting our votes in the next election. We’re not only voting for policy positions but also HOW those decisions will be made; and at least in the case of the Greens, this means including representation from opposition parties and working to achieve a true consensus.
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 4:17 pm
Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Thursday that he didn’t know anything about the “clout list” and hadn’t seen it.
Now that’s BS at it’s highest level ! ! ! ! ! !
Comment by Northside Bunker Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 4:57 pm
Anon,
Get serious or go away.
It’s real simple: A request is not an order. An order is not a request. They are NOT one in the same.
Your notion that the governor was compelled to keep the subpoenas secret because the feds asked him to do so is nothing short of absurd.
Comment by DeepFriedOnAStick Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 5:14 pm
There is, however, a point to be made here. Under exemptions to the IL FOIA is this…
===Records compiled by any public body for administrative enforcement proceedings and any law enforcement or correctional agency for law enforcement purposes or for internal matters of a public body, but only to the extent that disclosure would:
(i) interfere with pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceedings conducted by any law enforcement or correctional agency;===
Fitzgerald said disclosure “could impede the investigation and thereby interfere with the enforcement of the law.”
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 5:22 pm
The governor’s office is effectively arguing that it’s determined to not impede the broadening federal investigation of itself. Whatever it takes, I guess.
Comment by DeepFriedOnAStick Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 5:26 pm
Fitzgerald’s letter said ” if you do not believe that you can comply with this request, I request that you contact mee before complying with this request.My question ….did Blago attorneys contact Fitzgerald…and what did he say?
Comment by downhereforyears Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 5:31 pm
Too bad the list is actually the Gov.’s but in “TR”’s possession….Seems like the news is Lexi’s bro is clouted by TR himself…..Yikes. Did he have more mentors than Obama?????????
Inquring minds must know
Comment by IDTYT Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 6:22 pm
IDTYT -
So Madigan is now going on the offensive against Alexi?
Yikes. This is going to be a rough couple of years.
Comment by Hmmmm Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 6:28 pm
Squideshi, I enjoy your rantings on the Green Party, but I am certain once they got into power, they would fall into the same trappings as other parties. They are human
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 6:35 pm
So, does anybody know who all the people identified on the clout list by initials only are? I assume TR is Tony Rezko and LP is Louanner Peters, but who is MB, for example?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 6:36 pm
Milorad Blagojevich ? =MB
Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 7:36 pm
I don’t want to seem an apologist, but in the Gov’s position, I wouldn’t disregard the request of the US Attorney
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 8:08 pm
- steve schnorf -
But how about the order of a Judge issued from his Court. I think the Judge trumps Fitz’s “request”.
Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 8:32 pm
AA can’t keep all the orders, requests, opinions, etc. straight, but-didn’t attorney General Madigan opine in favor of the IPA and BGA that the FOIA exemption Rich cites is not applicable in this particular situation?
I could be completely off base, but as I recall, this opinion is what sent it to court…
Now that it’s public, and of course Rod has never seen it, (very possibly true) this list is some great cannon fodder for the “US Attorney’s Satellite Office” also known as Feldman, Wasser, & Draper.
Ignore the names-catch the notes:
For 4 candidates listed as “CMS-Buyer.” the notes field includes:
“Resume sent to Rumman..need to create position.”
“Resume sent to Rumman..need to create position..sent to Lottery for Marketing position…indicated she was not qualified”
That’s a classic; not good enough to sell Lotto tickets, but good enough to buy computers and police cars for the State.
No wonder Rumman went to build a boiler in Baghdad.
For an “accounting position” at the Investment Board, it’s noted that..”(candidate) nervous..needs interview practice..will give second interview..considered for it is in process of being reclassified double exempt.”
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Feb 21, 08 @ 10:34 pm
Leaving the Governor out of it, would give deference to a request from Patrick Fitzgerald. And not a lawyer, but a request from a federal prosecutor should trump a state law … .
Comment by Smitty Irving Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 1:06 am
How unfederalist of you.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 3:33 am
=a request from a federal prosecutor should trump a state law=
No way, Jose.
Only a court order can do so.
Comment by Clean as a Whistle... Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 6:04 am
Cutting deals with Libertarians is called “Squid Pro Quo” - just to clarify.
Comment by A Citizen Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 10:36 am
Wumpus, I disagree. Why? Simple. This very existence type of political barter is one of the reasons that the Green Party was founded. The party, at it’s root and core, is built upon the idea of Grassroots Democracy (one of the party’s Key Values) and was intentionally designed to stand against that type of politics which, unfortunately, is unique to neither the Democratic or Republican parties.
A Citizen, there was never of deal cut with the Libertarians, of which I am aware. Yes, it is true that Greens and Libertarians have closely together on ballot access issues, but both parties already agreed on those issues and there was no quid pro quo–nothing was offered or promised in return. Greens would just as easily work with Democrats and Republicans on the very same issues, and the party would support the right of others to be on the ballot, even if they have radically different ideas than the Green Party. That’s because the party has a commitment to grassroots democracy.
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Feb 22, 08 @ 12:01 pm