Blago Trial

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

This is just so bizarre.

 

If he was going to sell the seat to some guy who was working with ObamaCo... then one of two things has to be true. Either it already was underway and evidence already existed - in which case, you are f***ed anyway... or it hadn't happened yet, so you do the really, really easy thing - WALK AWAY. Seriously, why all the unnecessary drama? There is absolutely no reason for them to take the path you are suggesting, when there is a lower risk and easier path available to them.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

 

I would like you to read this sentence you typed. You think the ONLY way to stop his buddy from being tied to it, is to arrest Blago early? Not, I don't know, tell them to stop? I mean seriously. If this was some Obama pal, who he had that kind of influence over... you think he has the complex power and time on his hands to orchestrate a whole arrest scheme... but can't just and say, "Hey dude, I really think you shouldn't try for that seat"?

 

[Soxbadger]

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.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

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 of 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.

Having a US Attorney arrest Blago on trumped up charges as you allege is just as potentially criminal as telling JJ Jr to not go for the seat. Your theory makes no sense.

 

Further, if there was evidence that something like that was happening, the defense would have used it and called witnesses.

 

Lastly, do you really think that Obama would do ANYTHING to get his hands dirty in order to defend Jesse Jackson Jr? There is no way he'd put himself at that level of risk for that guy.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Oh, and it is a crime to intend to sell the Senate seat as much as it is to actually sell the seat.

[Soxbadger]

Having a US Attorney arrest Blago on trumped up charges as you allege is just as potentially criminal as telling JJ Jr to not go for the seat. Your theory makes no sense.

 

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.

 

Further, if there was evidence that something like that was happening, the defense would have used it and called witnesses.

 

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.

 

Lastly, do you really think that Obama would do ANYTHING to get his hands dirty in order to defend Jesse Jackson Jr? There is no way he'd put himself at that level of risk for that guy.

 

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?

 

Oh, and it is a crime to intend to sell the Senate seat as much as it is to actually sell the seat.

 

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.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

Everyone asked those questions. There was all kinds of suspicion as to who it was.

 

What procedures did they deviate on? Its pretty standard to not name other actors that are not being used as material witnesses in high profile cases, you see it all the time.

 

No one said they acted because it was heinous crime in commission or pending, you added the heinous part. Its pretty much accepted they acted when they did for two very simple reasons - the impending Trib article, and the fact that the sitting governor was about to commit more crimes.

 

You said it yourself - Obama will protect himself first. Therefore, your theory of him getting involved makes no sense.

 

As for not bringing up witnesses for the defense who might have been buyers, did you not see all those ridiculous subpoenas they tried to file to call everyone and their grandmothers to the stand? They got turned down - because the defense was unable to provide reasoning for why they were relevant. Why would they try that path? Because they wanted to show it was normal, day-to-day politics at large. If they could have gotten others in, they would have, but there was apparently no real evidence of it.

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

It is in drug cases, because often times you don't have the money to use wiretaps. Here, it was pretty easy if not for the one juror.

 

Speaking of: "Chiakulas is a retired director from the Illinois Department of Public Health. She was juror 106, college educated, is active in the Urban League and other politics, and listens to NPR."

 

Somehow that description doesn't surprise me. And reportedly she's been saying since July she'd find him not guilty. http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro...-trial-20100818

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

It is in drug cases, because often times you don't have the money to use wiretaps. Here, it was pretty easy if not for the one juror.

 

Speaking of: "Chiakulas is a retired director from the Illinois Department of Public Health. She was juror 106, college educated, is active in the Urban League and other politics, and listens to NPR."

 

Somehow that description doesn't surprise me. And reportedly she's been saying since July she'd find him not guilty. http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro...-trial-20100818

Where are you seeing the bolded?

 

[southsider2k5]

Oh, and it is a crime to intend to sell the Senate seat as much as it is to actually sell the seat.

 

I thought the Supreme Court just weakened that after the trail began?

[clyons]

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.

 

 

From a conspiracy standpoint, I don't beleive it matters if the sale of the seat to a specific buyer was imminent or not. If I know cocaine is "golden" in that people like to pay a lot of money to snort it, and I take definite measures to take cash in on that, including acquiring some and making preparations to sell (buying a scale, cutting and dividing), I am guilty of possession with intent to distribute, regardless of whether I have identified any potential target buyers. Sure, I haven't "sold" until the coke exchanges hands for cash, but I am legally guilty of posession with intent to distribute and, if others are involved with me and more importantly for this analogy, conspiracy to distribute.

 

I don't think you need to have a "buyer" as a predicate to conspiracy, although the Blago jury may have thought so, or at least preferred it.

[StrangeSox]

It is in drug cases, because often times you don't have the money to use wiretaps. Here, it was pretty easy if not for the one juror.

 

Speaking of: "Chiakulas is a retired director from the Illinois Department of Public Health. She was juror 106, college educated, is active in the Urban League and other politics, and listens to NPR."

 

Somehow that description doesn't surprise me. And reportedly she's been saying since July she'd find him not guilty. http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro...-trial-20100818

 

So what? That doesn't mean someone is incapable of being objective. Blago was pretty strongly disliked by just about everyone.

 

Also, from the article:

"FOX Chicago News reported that it is likely to be juror Jo Ann Chiakulas of Willowbrook, after a second-hand acquaintance said that she has been saying since early july that she would find Blagojevich not guilty."

 

Reliable information right there.

[StrangeSox]

Where are you seeing the bolded?

"FOX Chicago News reported that it is likely to be juror Jo Ann Chiakulas of Willowbrook, after a second-hand acquaintance said that she has been saying since early july that she would find Blagojevich not guilty."

 

Unnamed "second-hand acquaintance"

[NorthSideSox72]

"FOX Chicago News reported that it is likely to be juror Jo Ann Chiakulas of Willowbrook, after a second-hand acquaintance said that she has been saying since early july that she would find Blagojevich not guilty."

 

Unnamed "second-hand acquaintance"

Ah, I missed that. Seems like a pretty thin source, I agree.

 

[Soxbadger]

What procedures did they deviate on? Its pretty standard to not name other actors that are not being used as material witnesses in high profile cases, you see it all the time.

 

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."

 

No one said they acted because it was heinous crime in commission or pending, you added the heinous part. Its pretty much accepted they acted when they did for two very simple reasons - the impending Trib article, and the fact that the sitting governor was about to commit more crimes.

 

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.

 

You said it yourself - Obama will protect himself first. Therefore, your theory of him getting involved makes no sense.

 

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.

 

As for not bringing up witnesses for the defense who might have been buyers, did you not see all those ridiculous subpoenas they tried to file to call everyone and their grandmothers to the stand? They got turned down - because the defense was unable to provide reasoning for why they were relevant. Why would they try that path? Because they wanted to show it was normal, day-to-day politics at large. If they could have gotten others in, they would have, but there was apparently no real evidence of it.

 

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.

[Rex Kickass]

I thought the Supreme Court just weakened that after the trail began?

 

I believe that doesn't apply as much with public employees as it does to private employers.

[Soxbadger]

From a conspiracy standpoint, I don't beleive it matters if the sale of the seat to a specific buyer was imminent or not. If I know cocaine is "golden" in that people like to pay a lot of money to snort it, and I take definite measures to take cash in on that, including acquiring some and making preparations to sell (buying a scale, cutting and dividing), I am guilty of possession with intent to distribute, regardless of whether I have identified any potential target buyers. Sure, I haven't "sold" until the coke exchanges hands for cash, but I am legally guilty of posession with intent to distribute and, if others are involved with me and more importantly for this analogy, conspiracy to distribute.

 

I don't think you need to have a "buyer" as a predicate to conspiracy, although the Blago jury may have thought so, or at least preferred it.

 

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.

 

It is in drug cases, because often times you don't have the money to use wiretaps. Here, it was pretty easy if not for the one juror.

 

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.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

Now you're just talking to talk. None of this is even remotely true. Prosecutors DO take risks, all the time. They don't ALWAYS make sure that they have more evidence than is necessary. In fact, they'll do cases purely on circumstantial evidence if they have to. I worked at a States Attorneys office for a year and my two partners now started as States Attorneys and everything I've seen/heard leads me to believe the majority of the time if there's even a hint of guilt they'll take the case.

 

Most drug deals they don't waste the time/money/man power on wiretaps. Big big big big big dealers, sure, but not 95% of whats going on out there. So no, they wait for deals because there are stiffer penalties with a deal over a conspiracy so the scumbags are off the street for a longer amount of time. Check out The Wire for that entire issue.

 

What shortcut did they take here? Any potential for them to catch him in the act was about to be ruined by the Tribune. If they waited, there was a potential that Blago and his team could get together and basically make s*** up to make it sound like everything they had been doing was a big joke. When they nabbed him they had tapes up to the point that they got him, without him knowing anything about it. Ideally yeah, it would have been great to catch him in the act, but it just didn't work out that way.

 

As far as the fox news source, they were right as you can tell by the end, when they called her and she refused to comment until she was ready. So, the source was right about her being the juror, and may or may not be right about her making up her mind in early july.

 

And SS, no, any reasonable person would have convicted him for conspiracy, at the least. There are HOURS of tapes those jurors heard of Blago talking with his brother or other people on his staff about the best way to use that senate seat. He was talking about it, he was planning it, he just couldn't find any buyers. He absolutely conspired to recieve something for that seat. She's a former director of a public service office. I'd be willing to bet a lot that she was/is a Blago supporter.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

Now you're just talking to talk. None of this is even remotely true. Prosecutors DO take risks, all the time. They don't ALWAYS make sure that they have more evidence than is necessary. In fact, they'll do cases purely on circumstantial evidence if they have to. I worked at a States Attorneys office for a year and my two partners now started as States Attorneys and everything I've seen/heard leads me to believe the majority of the time if there's even a hint of guilt they'll take the case.

 

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.

 

Most drug deals they don't waste the time/money/man power on wiretaps. Big big big big big dealers, sure, but not 95% of whats going on out there. So no, they wait for deals because there are stiffer penalties with a deal over a conspiracy so the scumbags are off the street for a longer amount of time. Check out The Wire for that entire issue.

 

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.

 

 

What shortcut did they take here? Any potential for them to catch him in the act was about to be ruined by the Tribune. If they waited, there was a potential that Blago and his team could get together and basically make s*** up to make it sound like everything they had been doing was a big joke. When they nabbed him they had tapes up to the point that they got him, without him knowing anything about it. Ideally yeah, it would have been great to catch him in the act, but it just didn't work out that way.

 

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.

 

any reasonable person would have convicted him for conspiracy, at the least. There are HOURS of tapes those jurors heard of Blago talking with his brother or other people on his staff about the best way to use that senate seat. He was talking about it, he was planning it, he just couldn't find any buyers. He absolutely conspired to recieve something for that seat.

 

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.

 

Edited August 20, 2010 by Soxbadger

[clyons]

Conspiracy requires an active step.

 

 

Problem is that they have no active steps taken by Blago.

 

Thats why this is a huge clusterf*** of a prosecution.

 

 

Maybe not for the Senate seat count(s), but I thought I heard about lots of active steps taken in other matters; e.g.; those pertaining to Children's Memorial Hospital and the Tribune. Those sounded like pretty specific shakedowns of specific targets, for pretty specific quid pro quo.

 

I don't think its fair to brand the whole prosecution a clusterf*** because the feds may have been forced to jump the gun on the one most egregious, and the most highly publicized, alleged "sale."

[kapkomet]

Blago is a hero.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

Everything I'm reading says no overt act is needed. If you and I agree to rob a bank, we've met the requirement of intent, and we're guilty of conspiracy. Thinking about it isn't enough, but if you call me up and we discuss it, it probably is.

 

It seems the lone juror wanted a smoking gun - i.e., she wanted him on tape saying "we need to get X amount of money before we sell this seat." The way I read the law, and the quotes that I heard, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that Blago and his crew conspired to sell the seat for campaign contributions and/or an appointment to a federal position. The RICO stuff I can see as being less likely, simply because this wasn't some complex criminal scheme. He's just a dirty politician that was stupid enough to talk about this stuff openly despite being aware of the FBI's investigation.

[Balta1701]

Blago is a hero.

Yup.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I always figured Blogo as more of a cartoon than a comic book hero.

[EvilMonkey]

OK, wife and I were talking about this . They keep talking about the 'millions' it would cost to retry Blago. The prosecutor is getting paid anyway, whether he there or back in the office picking his nose. Same for public defender (if he goes that route), the judge, bailifs, etc. The only new cost directly related to the trial would be Blago's lawyer, if the court ok'ed paying for it, and jury expenses. Even if you Do factor in pay for the judge, lawyers, etc, prorated over the month or two for the new trial can't be that bad. Where do they get the 'several million' price tag from?