Soxbadger

I never liked Lovie. I hate the Cover 2. From the day the Bears hired Lovie ive wanted Singletary. Why would I sour on Singletary?

I think you have to switch Wisconsin to division 1. Something like Wisconsin for Illinois, NU or MSU. (The below alignment moves 2 teams from each division. Wisconsin and Minnesota to Division 1, Michigan and MSU to Division 2) I actually think the easiest way would be to move Michigan to Division 2, but it seems that people in the Big 10 believe that Michigan will be good some day. If I had to align Id go: Division 1 Wisconsin Minnesota Iowa Nebraska Illinois Northwestern Division 2 Ohio State Penn State Michigan Michigan State Purdue Indiana This alignment makes far more sense geographically and competitively. OSU is the best Big 10 team. Any division they go to will have the top team. PSU could go to division 2 and replace them with Iowa/Wisconsin in Division 1, but are they that much better than those 2 teams to completely disrupt geography? My alignment keeps Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska together. These schools either have traditions, or are likely to form them due to geographic proximity. All schools in the same state are in the same division. I think my alignment may come to pass, because I think Michigan and OSU have the power to prevent the split, add in that Alvarez will fight tooth and nail to make sure he stays with Nebraska, Iowa. At least I hope that they split it my way, otherwise youre going to see a lot of Iowa- OSU championship games. Michigan is the past, Rodriquez killed the program.

Id rather have Singletary.

Not sure if anyone else watched the Spain- USA game (it was pretty good), but Rose was basically the go to guy at the end of the game.

Yeah Ive always liked Henry. Id love to see the Bulls pull off a trade, but who knows if they can get it done.

Im talking federal cases, not state cases. There is a significant difference. In a large federal case, like the Blago trial, they dont want to take nearly the same amount of risk as they would with a small time drug dealer or criminal. The reason being that if you miss and Blago is acquitted, game over. There is no second chance that the guy goes back on the street and commits a similar crime and you get him anyways. I am only talking Federal cases and all I can go off of is my experience with Federal Prosecutors. I myself never went into the criminal field, so I can only rely on what I learned from the few US attorneys who taught us trials. From what they told me, they generally wait until they have a significant amount of hard evidence, before proceeding. Only the big big big dealers usually get prosecuted in Federal Court. I am specifically speaking about Federal prosecutions, not state prosecutions. This was a Federal case, brought by arguably one of the top federal prosecutors. Its just odd (imo) how they went about it. I disagree. I think that they could have caught Blago saying something stupid after the Tribune article. I dont think the article would have necessarily blown the case up, but that is just my opinion. Im not Woodward & Bernstein, I dont have some sort of inside information where I can say that this is truth. I just am trying to put the pieces together on what I considered an odd prosecution. I have been saying this since the day that they went after him, I thought that it was going to be a very hard trial for the prosecutors, with a good chance Blago not getting convicted on a lot of charges. I could be entirely wrong, but absent some sort of new evidence, Ill probably believe that there was something else going on that caused them to nab him early. Outside of talking about it, what significant step did Blago take? Id actually have to look at the Federal Code and the statute that he was accused of breaking, but from what I can remember merely talking about committing a crime is not enough, you actually have to do something. IE I call up some one and say "Lets rob a bank" Thats not conspiracy until I call some one up and say "Lets rob a bank" and then I start creating plans, or then I start casing banks, etc. There mere thought of breaking the law, is generally not conspiracy. Unless the statute has some specific exception that merely discussing breaking the law is conspiracy.

Conspiracy requires an active step. Merely talking is generally not considered an active step. Setting up a bank account for the funds to be transferred, etc. would have been an active step. Problem is that they have no active steps taken by Blago. Thats why this is a huge clusterf*** of a prosecution. And prosecutors dont like to take risks. So they make sure that they have far more evidence than necessary in almost every trial. Unlike Blago, if a real criminal get off on a bad case, there are real consequences, they go back on the street and keep committing crimes. I dont know the numbers, but I assure you in large trafficking cases they have wiretaps and the works. They just dont take risks like this on a normal basis. Which is why it strikes me as odd that they took a "short cut" on an extremely high profile case.

Not standard in a prosecution of intent to sell to not name the people who it was being sold to. My guess is that in 75% of those cases the person buying is also arrested and then given some sort of plea agreement to testify against the seller. In this case that was not an option as the plea agreement would have ended the persons political career. Ive never been involved in a federal corruption case so I cant tell you the nuts and bolts of what they normally do. I can tell you from the few classes I had taught by ex federal prosecutors that this is not how they generally do it. Why they deviated, who knows. But in general they want the evidence to be concrete and easy to understand for the jury. That would mean, you let Blago sell the seat, let the buyer transfer the money and then nail them both right after. That way you have clear concise case that can be easily understood by the Jury. Blago was going to sell the seat to X. X paid Blago. Much easier case to prove then "Blago was going to sell the seat to any number of people, and we have no clear evidence what he was asking for, but we assure you that he was going to sell it." I thought Fitzgerald said it would make Abraham Lincoln roll over in his grave? He didnt use the word heinous, but that was the implication. And yes, the 2 simple reasons that people are told are: 1) The tribe article 2) That Blago was going on a "Crime spree" As explained before, neither of these reasons make any sense. It would be like saying that a prosecutor had to rush to charge X with a crime because the trib was going to run an article that said "DA investigating whether murder was committed by X". The second part makes no sense because none of the crimes Blago was going to commit where of the nature that they were irreversible. Blago was not a murderer, no one was worried that if he wasnt in jail theyd wake up with 6 more corpses. I think it makes sense, because I think that Obama has some things to hide, and that this could have potentially put him in a dicey situation. Obama has no alleged ties to Blago, but he does have alleged ties to other not so great people. Who knows where this was going, I surely dont. Right the Defense wanted to call witnesses who would help their side. I assure you they were not going to call any witness that would have hurt their case. I dont see how this is relevant to the idea that Blago could not call a witness in who was going to say: "Yah I was going to buy the seat, but then I got wind from Obama that they were taping Blago so I called off the deal." That would send all of them to jail, not many lawyers are going to let that happen. Its just my opinion, whether right or wrong.

No its not, youre leaving it up to Fitzgerald to make the call. You say if you want to go forward on the case you have to act now. Its not trumped up charges, because Fitzgerald believes that Blago is guilty. I doubt that Holder or Obama cared if Blago was charged or not. If hes not charged its a win, if he is charged, who cares hes a Democratic Governor from a state that is mostly Democrat. As long as the senate seat is democrat they could care less if Blago, Quinn or myself is governor. Um how? The Defense was arguing that Blago never was going to sell the seat. If you call in witnesses who say: "Oh yah Blago was going to sell me the seat" havent you just convicted your own client? There is no way to argue this without implying that Blago is guilty. It was for the sake of argument. I have no idea what Obama would or would not do. I know that Obama is a politician which makes me believe that he will do whatever it takes to make sure that he is okay. You dont think its odd that the supposed buyer has never been revealed? That its so clear Blago was selling this thing, but we have no clear evidence to who? It just doesnt make sense. You dont say that you had to act quickly because of how heinous the crime was, when the crime wasnt imminent. Theyve done a great job, no one even asks these questions, but this is not how criminal cases are usually tried. So I ask myself, in such a high profile case, why did the prosecution stray so heavily from normal procedure? Its just monumentally harder to prove. Its a crime to intend to sell drugs. But you wait until the transaction takes place, because otherwise its very very difficult to prove.

What is the other path? For the sake of argument Im going to say that Jesse Jackson Jr. was going to buy the seat. Holder hears from Fitzgerald that JJ is going to buy Obama's seat. Obama doesnt want JJ to go down with Blago. Obama cant call or tell anyone in JJ"s camp to "walk away" that would make Obama an accessory and he could go down to. He cant tell anyone in his circle to tell JJ because that would implicate him and could lead to the end o fhis presidency. So Obama tells Holder, get Blago now, and uses the excuse that this is such a horrific crime that you cant wait for it to happen (its not murder you can easily prevent some one from being admitted to the senate). Some one tips off the Tribune. Now you have Holder telling Fitz to go forward and the tribune threatening Fitz's case. Look at the evidence, why do you think the Prosecution barely went into who was buying the seat. In order to sell something you have to have a buyer. I cant sell cocaine if I have no one to buy it. In almost every transaction there is a buyer and seller, in criminal prosecutions you have facts of X was going to sell to Y. This case unraveled because you have no clear concrete facts. Either A) Blago was not really that close to selling the seat and did not commit a crime or B ) Blago was close to selling the seat and some one does not want collateral damage in terms of who the buyer was. The govt cant have it both ways. The sale of the seat could not have been imminent if there was not a specific buyer. So I believe that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. And its not that Blago was giving it to some one at the behest of Obama, its that one of Obama's "guys" may have got himself caught up with this, and Obama was trying to make sure he didnt go down with the ship.

You mean how did the Tribune get information on what should have been secret wire taps? Probably from some high ranking Democratic fed who was worried about who Blago was selling the seat too. Its better to distrust the govt and be wrong, then to trust the govt and be wrong. So I distrust almost everything that the govt says (Democratic and Republican) and try and piece together what I think the truth is from the facts. Why would Fitz be afraid? Perhaps because the "other" Illinois politician happened to be his bosses boss, Mr. Obama. Fitzgerald reports to Holder. Holder reports to Obama. I just cant imagine that Obama is going to sit on the sidelines and potentially watch one of his allies go down because of Blago's nonsense. The only way to stop it is to go after Blago before it can be tied to any specific person. Otherwise you just wait and see what happens. You have just as good of a case no matter what the trib does. And many times its the cover up that actually is what nails people, so its hard to say whether Blago trying to cover up would have helped or hurt him.

Its my private message board where you can read all of my opinions and musings. Ive only posted on Soxtalk, Im not a cheating man.

Yeah ive heard the excuse, I find it to be lazy and uninspiring. It would be like saying that they finally went after Al Capone because the trib was going to run an article that Fed may be investigating him for being associated with the mob. The article could have only prevented future misconduct, it could not have undone any of the wiretaps (almost the entirety of the evidence the govt had). I dont buy it, my belief is that Blago was going to sell the seat to some one who had far more powerful political allies. That when the powers that be got wind of the fact it wouldnt only be Blago going down, but instead it would be Blago + Politician, they forced Fitzgerald to move before he had a concrete case. I believe that the Democratic party did not want any potential senators/reps going down with Blago, because that would hurt them on a federal scale (which actually matters in terms of house/senate seats). Losing Blago, no one cares about. Losing a house or senate vote, when things are close, is a major deal. Thus the premature arrest. Once again, this is just my opinion. But this was not a case where you really had to worry about Blago covering up physical evidence. They guy cant use email or computers, hes not writing memos outlining the sale of the seat. It was all done over the phone. I think the Tribune is a convenient excuse.

Well that is true. Conspiracy to commit a crime requires a some actual action towards committing the crime. Just merely speaking about it, is generally not enough. This is why police dont bust drug dealers, gang members, etc for just talking on the phone. They wait until they actually commit the crime. Thus the question is, why did the feds not wait until after Blago actually sold the seat and took the cash? Ive got some conspiracy theories, but I doubt we will ever know the truth.

1) True, but in general loading up on counts does not do a huge amount of difference. The reason (imo) that they load up on them is so that all they have to do is get one. 2) You dont even want to know about the conspiracy theory I have regarding Obama and the Blago arrest. Ive got a lot of issues with Obama, but some one has to be the tallest midget.

I disagree. I think the purpose of criminal law is to stop further criminal behavior by the specific individual and to rehabilitate them back into society, which is why they are given sentences that match the crime. I do not think the purpose of criminal law is to catch a few criminals and try and set examples of them, believing it will some how dissuade further criminal behavior. Blago was governor because of Mell. He then pissed off Mell and got thrown to the wolves. Just because some one has a more prolific position does not mean that they actually have more power. Do you really think Blago had the ability to successfully become Governor on his own? The guy could barely use a computer, had no idea how to send a txt message and cant even type or send email. He was a pawn, who was more marketable then other candidates, so they went with him knowing that theyd tell him what to do. In my opinion the reason why the feds went after Blago before the seat was sold, is that they feared theyd have to take down some one else with Blago, who had more political clout and it would mess up the case. But if people think that Blago going to jail will really change Illinois politics, its a great belief. I just dont think it would happen, I think you take down a Mell/Madigan, you show the old school political powers that its not just business as usual. But right now, everyone is focusing on Blago, instead of looking at what is still going on in Illinois politics today.

Which goes against our entire criminal system. You dont single out an individual defendant to send a message. You treat everyone equally under the law. I dont believe in sending messages, they dont work. The only message that is being sent to politicians right now is: 1) Dont be as stupid as Blago. 2) If youre going to be as stupid as Blago, make sure you play ball with the more powerful politicians. In my opinion this is all about Blago not playing the game with the Madigan's, Mell's, Daley's and Obama's of the world. If you want to send a message, take down a big fish, not a small one. But the multiple counts wont really matter. In all reality he will most likely serve "concurrent" terms, which means that if he gets convicted for 70 counts at 5 years, or 1 count at 5 years, it is still the same time served. As for the country blowing over the crap, its the reality of politics. People enter politics for private gain. They become senators, governors, presidents, for their own gain. We dont have some philosopher king system where the politicians are altruistic and want to help people. As much as that would be great, it is a fantasy world. When it comes to politicians (imo) its just a matter of which one is the worst or the biggest criminal, because I believe almost all of them push the envelope a little. Anyway, I just dont see the need of the govt wasting money on this stuff. It wont change politicians, hell even though governors of Illinois have been convicted, Blago was still "brazen" about it.

I dont think I ever said that. Merely stated that they feds have a conviction that could carry up to 5 year prison term. What more do they want? 20 year term? 50 year term? The guy is in ruins, he wont ever have the opportunity to commit a similar crime again. He poses no real risk to society. I guess Im not into punishment for the sake of punishment. They convicted Blago, why do they need another show? I would prefer that they moved on to bigger and better things.

I call Jew!

They have convicted him. They just want their pound of flesh. It didnt work out well for the shylock and I hope it doesnt work for the US govt. People who commit violent crimes are often given less time than what the govt wants Blago to do. I just dont believe they have their priorities straight.

How do we give Ozzie his pay check? Im pretty sure Jerry and the gang sign all Sox payroll checks.

Um wheres our Liriano? Sale has been pretty sick in his few appearances.

Bobak's sausage suck. Seriously suck, I wont even eat Italian sausage at the park because of how bad it is.

The scene in Rudy when the players go into the coach's office and offer to sit out so Rudy can play.

Who defines what mainstream is? What is mainstream in one part of the country, is certainly not mainstream in another. You happen to live in a Northern state, where there is a disproportionate urban population. What is mainstream political opinion in Illinois, is certainly not mainstream in another state. I dont think youre a bigot, I just dont think you support the constitution as strongly as I do, at least not on this matter.