Texsox Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 09:06 AM) Did you read any of the criminal complaint? The feds have better tapes. They just didn't release them for the impeachment trial. I am always uncomfortable with "trust me, we have better evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeFabregas Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Well, unless Daniel Cain was outright lying on the criminal complaint... They will need better evidence to impeach him. However, I think it's a great bet to assume that better tapes will be played in the criminal trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 No way the Feds showed the heart of their hand in those tapes. They've got a lot more, I have no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:07 AM) No way the Feds showed the heart of their hand in those tapes. They've got a lot more, I have no doubt. They probably do. And it probably helps both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:07 AM) No way the Feds showed the heart of their hand in those tapes. They've got a lot more, I have no doubt. Which makes me wonder why you would release the other stuff than. All it does is potentially put doubt into the minds of people who could end up on his jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) Which makes me wonder why you would release the other stuff than. All it does is potentially put doubt into the minds of people who could end up on his jury. Well, you can't just indict someone for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:43 AM) Well, you can't just indict someone for no reason. So why not release the best evidence? They have to disclose what they have to the person on trial eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) So why not release the best evidence? They have to disclose what they have to the person on trial eventually. Because the impeachment is not a criminal trial and the evidence doesn't have to hold the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) Which makes me wonder why you would release the other stuff than. All it does is potentially put doubt into the minds of people who could end up on his jury. I think that was done for two reasons. One, as someone said earlier, you can't have the perception that it is "nothing", they need to show a bit of the case, since the suspect is so high profile. Two, and I think this is the key - they were aware that Blago's crimes were directly part of his governorship, and they wanted to do what they could to politically incapacitate him in a hurry. They wanted the impeachment, and to render him useless, so that he couldn't do more damage. So, they released enough to make that happen, while they shore up the rest of the criminal case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 08:17 AM) Did anyone else listen to the tapes last night and wonder if that was the best of the evidence they had? You really had to read into his statements to get out what the government is saying. I am sure there is more, but what was released yesterday was pretty weak on its own merits. The FBI saves the juicy s*** for the actual trial. Don't worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) I think that was done for two reasons. One, as someone said earlier, you can't have the perception that it is "nothing", they need to show a bit of the case, since the suspect is so high profile. Two, and I think this is the key - they were aware that Blago's crimes were directly part of his governorship, and they wanted to do what they could to politically incapacitate him in a hurry. They wanted the impeachment, and to render him useless, so that he couldn't do more damage. So, they released enough to make that happen, while they shore up the rest of the criminal case. I think with what was released before, no one had the perseption that this was for no reason. Releasing sketchy parts of this, doesn't help them out at all. It actually strengthens Rod's defense that it was personal. It would be really easy to argue that he was just doing state business, which sometimes involves some arm twisting. There was nothing on there that spelled out anything illegal. They had better not screw this up, that would be the worse possible thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 The audacity of Blago is really just unbelievable. The guy is in his own little world. I can't believe I still have to see "Gov. Rod Blagojevich" next to all the IPass collectors as I drive on the highway. He's going to prison, hopefully for a decent amount of time, but I really wish he weren't still technically our governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) They had better not screw this up, that would be the worse possible thing. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:47 AM) So why not release the best evidence? They have to disclose what they have to the person on trial eventually. You don't jerk off immediately before having sex with a woman, do you? (lol. Yeah crude I know but only analogy I can think of at the moment.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) You don't jerk off immediately before having sex with a woman, do you? (lol. Yeah crude I know but only analogy I can think of at the moment.) However, sometimes it's necessary to get the easy one out of the way so the big dance goes all the better... Haven't you ever seen "There's Something About Mary"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:02 PM) However, sometimes it's necessary to get the easy one out of the way so the big dance goes all the better... Haven't you ever seen "There's Something About Mary"?? Yeah, but you do that one hours before, not immediately before. Oh, and I can attest to that advice, it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The wheels of impeachment were spinning well before the federal case. The disdain for Blago in Springfield goes to his ability to be the Govenor. The guy is a mess down state and is driving the state into financial chaos. He is being impeached due to the fact that Illinois politics are a disaster and the republicans are still paying for George Ryan. Also who the f*** runs outside in this weather? Get a membership to one of the many top scale clubs around. What an asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) Oh, and I can attest to that advice, it works. Oh of course it does. Let's you give your lady more juice later on that evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) I think with what was released before, no one had the perseption that this was for no reason. Releasing sketchy parts of this, doesn't help them out at all. It actually strengthens Rod's defense that it was personal. It would be really easy to argue that he was just doing state business, which sometimes involves some arm twisting. There was nothing on there that spelled out anything illegal. They had better not screw this up, that would be the worse possible thing. Yeah, I think the Assembly needed a final push to get the Impeachment the momentum it needed. This provided that. I think it worked pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I still have to agree with Southsider on this one, if they have some really great evidence, which is what we all seem to believe, they could have released some stuff a few notches better than this. And they can't "save stuff for the trial", they have to disclose their case to the defendant. Perhaps both sides prefer some of this to remain private until it has to be disclosed. If this was a city councilperson in Smithville (pop 428) then that is one thing, but if you are going to prosecute the Governor of Illinois, take a lethal shot early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 09:36 AM) I still have to agree with Southsider on this one, if they have some really great evidence, which is what we all seem to believe, they could have released some stuff a few notches better than this. And they can't "save stuff for the trial", they have to disclose their case to the defendant. Perhaps both sides prefer some of this to remain private until it has to be disclosed. If this was a city councilperson in Smithville (pop 428) then that is one thing, but if you are going to prosecute the Governor of Illinois, take a lethal shot early. I think there's another possibility to consider here. Fitz may well have actually blown his case in order to make it so that the governor couldn't sell that Senate Seat. Having him actually sell the seat would have set him up incredibly well for prosecution, but until the money is exchanged, the governor's hair can argue that he was just being taken out of context, which is what he's saying now. If you're in Fitz's chair...ask yourself this question. You have to weigh; either a successful prosecution and a corruptly purchased senate seat, or an unsuccessful prosecution but an exposed and handicapped governor who's unable to sell the seat and who is removed from that position by impeachment hearings. If that was the case, I can see why he'd choose the latter option, even if it hurts his case in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) I think there's another possibility to consider here. Fitz may well have actually blown his case in order to make it so that the governor couldn't sell that Senate Seat. Having him actually sell the seat would have set him up incredibly well for prosecution, but until the money is exchanged, the governor's hair can argue that he was just being taken out of context, which is what he's saying now. If you're in Fitz's chair...ask yourself this question. You have to weigh; either a successful prosecution and a corruptly purchased senate seat, or an unsuccessful prosecution but an exposed and handicapped governor who's unable to sell the seat and who is removed from that position by impeachment hearings. If that was the case, I can see why he'd choose the latter option, even if it hurts his case in the long run. Fitzgerald is looked at by most as a very intelligent, very cunning prosecutor. I just highly doubt he would choose to blow his case intentionally. I think he structured the case, the arrest, the releases and everything else to do what he wanted to do - paralyze Blago, then convict him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 When I read the criminal complaint I thought this was going to be a tough conviction. The main reason is because they need the person on the other end to come forward and testify that they were actually going to buy the seat. If you only have tapes where Blago is saying "this seat is valuable", "I want something for this seat", it does not prove anything. Even if you have Blago on tape saying "I am going to sell this seat to the highest bidder", there is no way to prove that he was seriously considering it, as opposed to just "joking around." The prosecution needs one of the people who were contacted about "buying" the seat to come forward and confirm that the seat actually was being auctioned. Without some one coming forward it will almost be impossible to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Blago actually was going to sell the seat. Fitzgerald in some respects did start the criminal process to early. The normal way it would have been done was after Blago did the misdeed, so that they could catch him red handed with money trails etc. The way that it is now, it is just a complete clusterf*** for the Prosecution. Blago didnt sell the seat. Blago's appointment was approved. So now all they have is "attempt" which is weak. Itd be like listening in on a drug deal, arresting the dealer before the sale goes down and when you arrest the dealer he has no drugs. How can you prove that he was going to attempt to sell it, when you have no one who is saying they were willing to buy it? If it really was more than just idle chatter, wouldnt there be some one who wanted to buy it and was going through the process of actually getting ready to buy it? That question will haunt the prosecution, unless they can get some one to testify against Blago. The question is, who will ruin their career just to convict Blago, because they will have to say that they were attempting to negotiate to buy the seat from Blago. There are no flipper witnesses for the Fed to rely on in this case, most people I talk to think that its at worst 50-50 Blago gets convicted, with many believing that its a much better chance for acquittal. The impeachment is not a trial, its a proceeding where the result has already been dictated (guilty) they just need to go through the motions to make it look fair. Madigans, Mells, does it really matter? They are all in it for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) I think there's another possibility to consider here. Fitz may well have actually blown his case in order to make it so that the governor couldn't sell that Senate Seat. Having him actually sell the seat would have set him up incredibly well for prosecution, but until the money is exchanged, the governor's hair can argue that he was just being taken out of context, which is what he's saying now. If you're in Fitz's chair...ask yourself this question. You have to weigh; either a successful prosecution and a corruptly purchased senate seat, or an unsuccessful prosecution but an exposed and handicapped governor who's unable to sell the seat and who is removed from that position by impeachment hearings. If that was the case, I can see why he'd choose the latter option, even if it hurts his case in the long run. From what I understood at the time, it was the Tribune that was going to blow his case by going forward with an expose on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 12:15 PM) From what I understood at the time, it was the Tribune that was going to blow his case by going forward with an expose on this. I forgot about that part, but yes, that is also true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts