If Stupid Was A Crime
Eugene Robinson notes that the main reason Gov. Rod Blagojevich is being impeached is that he's a wacky guy with a bad haircut. And you know, he's right. I mean, I've read the transcripts, I've looked at the information. I just don't see anything criminal there.
I wrote about this kind of thing before. When I was a reporter, I saw that the feds would simply decide to go after someone. If they couldn't find enough to indict, they'd simply leak politically damaging information instead, with the idea of forcing them to resign. (One guy referred to it as "extermination.")
I pointed out that as far as I knew, we still had to convict someone in this country before we could refer to them as guilty, and said, "What if you're wrong? What if you do to to someone who isn't guilty?"
But Fibbies don't think like that. They think with their gut! They're never wrong! Except, of course, when they are.
So until someone indicts even though they've indicted wacky Bad Hair Man with criminal charges, I'd still take the whole thing with a very large grain of salt.
Fitzgerald the brilliant prosecutor that many folks say he is?
Oh and frist!
Are we still playing that?
because if he had a case he would have tried it himself. so much bluster and all he has to show for it is 'obstruction' by libby. FITZMAS is a republican holiday.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Blagojevich, 'the anti-Nixon'
Jan. 27: Embattled Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich explains to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that in spite of his political stunts and media tour he's not confident of the outcome of his trial in the Illinois Senate - though unlike Richard Nixon, he wants all of his tapes to be made public.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/28882...
Some stuff you can't make up!
Jan. 27: In an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, embattled Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich presents his side of the story on the accusation that he tried to have members of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board fired.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/28882...
Some stuff you can't make up!
Jan. 27: Embattled Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich makes his case to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that his impeachment troubles are more the result of politics than his personal wrongdoing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/28882...
Some stuff you can't make up!
I'll take all this with a grain of salt from Blag salt mine.
is the integrity of the US Attorney! He's been a repuglikkkan operative since day one.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Fitz couldn't find any wrongdoing by Darth Cheney.
Fitzjustice is blind and deaf and Republican.
Good prosecutor?
No, good showman with a flair for presenting "drama" to teh libbrill meedia while protecting high level Repukes.
Remember how high the hopes were when we thought that he had the stones to go after Darth?
Sheesh...
Fitz had the goods on Rove and was about to release an indictment. Then he got two visits from Gonzo, he sealed the indictments, and used Libby as a scapegoat. Since then, Rove's been a happy warrior.
"...Money Trumps Peace..." G.W. Bush, 2007
completely.
she plays the whole thing with the presumption of guilt.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Its not a universal concept. The presumption of innocence really only applies in the context of the justice system. As private citizens anyone is free to presume guilt or innocence of anyone else. If Rachel looked at the available evidence and presumed Blago is guilty its no big deal.
... media coverage can be the basis for a change of venue, on the grounds that the accused cannot get a fair trial.
To this end, Blagojevich may be his own worst enemy.
I think the impeachment trial would be basis enough for that.
Teh Blago is so egomaniacal he couldn't shut up while trying to clear his name, he ended up incriminating himself on Rachels show.
He is fucked.
Transcript: One on one with Rod Blagojevich
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow talks at length with the embattled Illinois governor
Silly me! Ego does not prove guilt, as I see it!
Some stuff you can't make up!
Bush is innocent.
because of blago. that is a pretty fucked up false equivalency. I would expect better from you.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Show me the documents, the e-mails. Show me direct transcripts implicating Bush. At best, Bush is guilty of doing nothing while the economy collapsed. "Doing nothing" isn't a crime, either.
Look up the Downing Street Memos showing Bush was fixing the intelligence around the policy. Bush is the mastermind behind the illegal invasion of Iraq as everyone here knows.
Is it the 21st century yet?
based on NOTHING
Now I understand.
Some stuff you can't make up!
... predicated that there must be criminal charges filed against Blagojevich, otherwise he's presumed innocent.
The same is true for Bush. There are no criminal charges filed. Articles of impeachment were filed by Dennis Kucinich, but not acted upon by Congress.
Mind you, this isn't so much to defend Bush as to point out that your argument isn't sound.
my argument is based on the simple presumtpion of neither guilt nor innocence until actual facts are on display.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Bush, as the National Command Authority, does have the ability to order troops deployed. As such, 4,000+ casualties cannot be considered proof of malfeasance or any other fanciful charges against him. The limits of the AUMF and the Constitution have not been decided in court, therefore - there is no actual 'fact' involved, and Bush is innocent by your standards.
Is that dead or broke - north of Effingham or south of Litchfield?
:<[)
Some stuff you can't make up!
You are probably right, but I think that the attitudes we're seeing here are just a sign of the times.
After eight years of abuse by authoritarian politicians, I think that people would like to see any arrogant pol pilloried.
Just sayin'; doesn't mean it's right.
... is that it reflects on Obama (or can at least be flung in his general direction).
nonsense.
four days in and it's Obama's fault.
It's all even clearer now.
Some stuff you can't make up!
... is how horribly confused you are.
Jan. 27: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow confronts embattled Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich on his appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate, leaving the people of Illinois with a politically disadvantaged representative.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/28882...
Some stuff you can't make up!
Seems to me that he incriminated himself regarding the alleged extortion of the Chicago Tribune and the selling of the senate seat.
I mean, maybe they don't have enough to convict him criminally. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
why have a trial? just execute him already.
Some stuff you can't make up!
... there is a trial. Blagojevich is whining because it's not being held according to his ideas of what's fair.
By skipping his court date and instead going on a media tour to garner public favor. This dude is a first rate manipulator...don't let his bullshit get into your head.
Why the fuck would the Governor of Illinois be afraid to prove his innocence? This guy is working the refs...and he's winning.
innocent, make your court appearances!! I was giving the guy the benefit of the doubt before, but if he's got the time to do the talk show circuit while his lawyers represent him in his absence, it speaks volumes, IMHO.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Whether guilty or not (and the smart money is betting that he ain't exactly innocent), Blago is clearly deranged. If he really believes he's innocent, then why is he afraid to show up for a legal process that is testing the evidence? Instead, he makes the talk show circuit, blow-dried mop and all.
There's a reason why his lawyer quit. Under such circumstances, the first thing a good lawyer is going to do is tell you to shut the fuck up.
I live in Illinois and I really hope this bozo has hung himself.
Just about everyone here knows he's a crook - but he's been a clever crook. If there isn't enough evidence (and despite his bluster - there might be) -- then we'll do it at the ballot box. All the same to me - the guy is toast. His approval ratings were in the SINGLE DIGITS before the news of indictment broke - he's lying about that on Maddow's show. I agree with medical experts that say he has a mental disorder.
... forgot the ever-popular lying to investigators, which is bound to pop up when nothing else can be substantiated.
Crooking & Liaring !
This kind of conspiracy theory post belongs over in Wingnuttia. Please spare us this unhinged, paranoid BS.
Raven, the trickster, would laugh his avian arse off..
The ability force someone to obtain legal counsel is significant weapon: it requires them to expend significant amounts of money and huge amounts of time and worry. That's one of the reasons that the legal system is often used (e.g., governments, corporations, rich people, and people with nothing to lose) to bully others. Even when you prevail in the legal system, you come away feeling victimized.
and it's win-win for the government because the press, even rachel, buy the bullshit and spread it around.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Sorry to nitpick... Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
... stupid is both a noun and a verb, then it's questionable.
If stupidity was a crime ... would work.
neither is wrong.
Some stuff you can't make up!
If so, I'm thinking "were."
:)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Ah, but the subjunctive mood is used when describing a counterfactual argument, so one would say, "If I were George Bush..." On the other hand one would say, "If George Bush was a drug-addled alcoholic..." I suppose that is why the subjunctive is referred to as a "mood" because it implies an interpretation by the speaker.
In this case, I have to say that being incredibly stupid is a crime - if not a legal crime, perhaps a crime against nature or humanity.
So, the original is acceptable in my opinion.
I noticed the same error.
"...Money Trumps Peace..." G.W. Bush, 2007
It seems like a lot of people here are (politely) confused. Impeachment is not a criminal trial -- it's not in any way equivalent to one. Impeachment is the process of removing a someone from their job, not denying them liberty, or life. So the notion that Blago is being denied Constitutional rights is deceptive and disingenuous. If you performed incompetently at your job, the 4th amendment rights do not guarantee you a trial before being fired. Impeachment is a political process to remove someone from public office who has lost the confidence those who elected them and/or ability to perform their job effectively. It is used far too rarely.
For example, many might believe that the right to a trial is contained in the Fifth Amendment and not the Fourth. Others might believe that that due process is triggered by the deprivation of life, liberty, and property. Still others might find a difference between the actions of a private employer and governmental action.
Finally, especially after Clinton, many may believe that impeachment has absolutely nothing to do public confidence or job effectiveness but is instead dependent solely on having enough votes.
But hey, they're confused - and apparently deceptive and disingenuous. Either that, or they're simply not very eager to throw out notions of fair play even when given an excuse.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Sixth Amendment.
Like I said, confused.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
... can the State Constitution of Illinois be perceived or construed to put Blagojevich (or whomever holds office under its authority) in a position where he's actually ceded some of those rights?
Finally, especially after Clinton, many may believe that impeachment has absolutely nothing to do public confidence or job effectiveness but is instead dependent solely on having enough votes.
This is an issue for which you can directly blame conservatives for screwing up. Thanks to conservatives future legislatures are going to be gunshy about doing their jobs should the chief executive be totally incompetent. The GOP impeached Clinton for nothing, knowing he'd never be removed, specifically to make that constitutional tool poison in case a president on their side is inpeachable like Shrubya surely was.
Bush wasn't impeached because of a Democratic leadership that was complicit in his crimes.
Strange as it may sound, I don't really fault the Republicans all that much for the last eight years; they were just doing what they always do. The fault lies with Democrats who refused to even raise a stink.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The democrats didn't raise hell about Shrub's complete incompetence because they perceived the impeachment tool as political poison to them. And that was because the GOP intended to taint that tool.
Don't ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to cowardice. And damn but the last Congress were a bunch of cowards. And they were coward because they though impeachment would be met with...
"WHAT!!!! We just smacked you down 8 years ago for this and now you want to do it AGAIN?"
Others might believe that that due process is triggered by the deprivation of life, liberty, and property
Sorry, are you equating governorship of Illinois with property rights?? This certainly is something Blago is charged with doing....
As I said, elsewhere in this thread, the holding of high public office is a privilege not a right. The only real issue here is whether or not there exists cause to overturn the will of the voters by the state assembly. The answer from the assembly, and polls of voters in Illinois, is yes.
He has a property interest in his job.
Also, the distinction between "right" and "privilege" has long been abolished by the Court. It's a distinction without a difference.
And again, what does "cause" have to do with impeachment? Are you saying that the 50 Senators who voted to remove Clinton had "cause"? Not IMHO.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
On Hardball yesterday Tweety or somebody was saying that what Blago did, trying to get campaign contributions or something like that,is what everybody does. In fact he gave a very good example of Tom delay. Delay invited lobbyists into his office and told them that if they wanted to talk to him they had better come up with some cash for campaigns and not talk to any Democrats or else. Maybe Heather could find that exchange on Hardball yesterday.
Buty Delay is a repug, so it's ok if they break the law.
You must realize that these proceedings are going on because Blago stood up to the bankers. I don't believe in coincidences, and the day before this stuff was leaked...he froze all State Gov't contracts with the Bank of Amerika.
You don't mess with the bankers!!! Give them 1 Trillion and don't ask where the money went. I mean, these are bankers...how are they supposed to track it? Right? I mean, if we are $.01 below our balance, we are charged a fee! But, when our lord masters, and overseers are given carte blanche, we must ask NO questions.
It's BANK OF AMERICA...stoopid!
the light of fact and truth.
Elliot Spitzer: wars against wall street. then the #9 tapes surface. US Attorney's office at it again.
Some stuff you can't make up!
I remember that, and the republic windows strike he helped workers with. People just keep parroting the corporate media witch hunt on someone who had the guts to stand up to raw power. He's a good guy imo but don't tell that to the sheep, they're happy crucifying the guy.
Is it the 21st century yet?
tinfoil hat crap, and you should be ashamed of sounding like a conservative jackaloon.
All it takes for impeachment is for the governor to spend state money in ways that the legislature specifically said not to. You do know that the Constitution really forbids that crap, don't you?
That happened long before any encounter with BofA, and there have been people wanting impeachment since about a year ago. Now that his main ally, Emil Jones, in the Senate is gone, the process, which is political and not criminal, can actually go on. Bet you didn't know that a plurality of Democrats said that impeachment was necessary last May.
But those are facts, and reality always gets in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
how about that asshole crossdresser gov from NY. spending state money on his girlfriend. did he get charged.
Spitzer resigned days after he got caught. No impeachment was necessary. Now if Spitzer had instead spat in the face of the NYLegislature like Blagonkadonk does, maybe he would have been. But bringing charges that would result in removal from office can't be done if the defendant removes himself from office.
You sound like the caller to WKRP that Bailey replied, "How can we announce that we are off the air when we are off the air?"
... I thought turkeys could fly."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Spitzer was never even accused of using state money on his hooker/girlfriend. If there had been evidence of that, he would have been prosecuted.
Whatever else his failings, he used his own money.
interfering with big pharma's gig also
That's where it all started.
Now that he is out of the way, oh look:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/blag...
What this guy is doing is probably what Tweety would call politics, and that is exactly why he should be impeached. I agree that impeachment does not hinder any other constitutional rights. It just means the representatives of the people you represent say, hey, your full of blagojevich and we're blagojeviching you out of our systems.
I don't know or care who made that connection. it's a diversion. the issue is guilt or innocence base on facts not snippets leaks and salacious reporting. Rachel has done a disservice, first by badgering blaggy then by bringing out a lawyer to expound on the multiple counts of which blaggy 'just declared himself to be guilty'.
Some stuff you can't make up!
... between saying, "I did nothing wrong," and "Rahm Emmanuel says there was nothing inappropriate about our conversation."
It's the same dodge that Bush pulled with his Harkin Energy stock divestiture. "See, the SEC says there's no case."
I'm amazed you can be hornswaggled by Blago's slick moves and literal truths. The fact is, he was/is under investigation, and the wiretaps strongly suggest improprieties. The correct response is, "If federal authorities believe a crime was committed, they should file charges and seek an indictment."
But Blago is too full of Blago to let that happen. The feds bluffed, he flinched.
I won't respond to you anymore.
Some stuff you can't make up!
Unless the released portion of the transcript in which Blagojevich spoke about getting something for making the appointment was, in fact, a conversation with Rahm Emmanuel, then the appearance of pay-to-play is separate from any conversation with Emmanuel. A does not equal B.
Thus, "Rahm Emmanuel says there was nothing inappropriate about our conversation," has no bearing on Blagojevich's problem. At best, Emmanuel can be called as a character witness, but he would still have no relevant testimony on the call transcript in question. Blagojevich's defense is that Exhibit B exists, but he's really under the microscope for Exhibit A.
When someone can't give a straight answer, it certainly doesn't lend itself to a portrayal of innocence. And this is why I cited Bush's dodge about his Harken Energy stock divestiture - he never answered the question.
As far as Blagojevich is concerned, the state legislature is within its authority to convene a hearing on the governor's performance. It's a function of checks and balances; if impeachment could ONLY be initiated by a recall effort or on the insistence of the electorate, it would say so.
Not presuming guilt or innocence shouldn't mean that you can't parse bullshit excuses from the parties involved.
The stupidest thing I've ever seen written.
Impeachment is ONLY a constitutional issue. It's the only way prescribed by the Constitution a legislature can remove an official for gross incompetence or criminality. Someone might be innocent in a criminal court, yet still do his job in a manner that flouts the state constitution.
You sound like a conservative.
... or CointelPronk?
Actually your comments are refreshing in that they're based on reality.
yeah, that's what I've been saying all along. read the transcript - nothing illegal in there. saying you're annoyed that someone won't pay you off is not the same as being caught making a direct offer of pay to play. its pretty much that simple, and the prosecution doesn't have it. on the other hand, it doesn't matter at all, in terms of the proceedings against Blagojevich - this isn't a criminal case, really.
Only in America is where the ?news? gives this guy more press on his mouth and hair. Where was the ?news? when the wars were started by LIES. Wire taping of the news, wire taping of Americans. waterboarding. secret prisons.Where were the ?news? when the bushes sent billions to Iraq in cash to buy bad guys. what, you don't know where the 9 billion dollars went. thats OK, we wont look into that. dicks old companie making billions, we wont look into that. colen plow's cartoons of why we should go to war,we won't look into that. American companies with offshore bank accounts,we won't look into that.one could go on and on. there is NO news, just corporate assholes who own the news and don't give a shit.
...honor to bother showing up in court. This is the kind of shit that the Repukes do.
Should have read 6th amendment rights -- you are correct... I was still waiting on my morning coffee. I reaaly shouldn't post before I've had it.
Nonetheless, the only real issue with impeachment is whether or not there exists reason or cause to overturn the will of the voters. Certainly with Clinton, the Republicans tried to make this case. They failed, however, because the crimes alleged (at the time) did not directly effect public policy or governance. In the case of Blago, there exists years of evidence that he has violated state procedural laws and there is a stench of corruption surrounding him. Even if he should be criminally proven innocent his actions and the charges merit an impeachment trial. Again impeachment is NOT a criminal action -- it exists to remove persons from their public held offices. A criminal prosecution may take years to complete (former governor Ryan's took ~3 years). Impeachment is a more immediate remedy to remove a potentially corrupt official. Under Illinois law, in fact, a person convicted of a criminal felony is immediately discharged from any public office. Impeachment exists as a pre-conviction process to remove public officials who have betrayed the public trust in one way or another. The burden of proof for impeachment is significantly lower -- in this political process -- than it need be for a criminal conviction. The holding of high public office is a privilege not a right.
... abolished any supposed distinction between a "right" and a "privilege." Moreover, Blago's Governorship is definitely a property right and subject to due process. That is not necessarily criminal due process (in this case definitely not). Nonetheless, he should at least have the opportunity to present witnesses on his own behalf.
And again, Clintons impeachment and trial had nothing to do with whether or not the "offense" directly affected public policy or governance. It was all about the votes- period. On obstruction of justice the vote was 50-50; on perjury it was 55-45 not to remove.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Bush v Gore is still not allowed to be interpreted as saying that rights and privileges are identical. The corrupt Scalia court intended it that way to say that rights=privileges only extends to George W Bush.
I do not believe you are correct -- with regards to states regulations, anyway. Courts have held there is a distinction between the privilege, for instance, to operate a motor vehicle and the guaranteed constitutional right, say, to free speech.
Blago attorneys were able to cross-examine witnesses against him in the house proceeding. But, again, the impeachment action does not rise to the level of a criminal -- or even civil -- procedure. It is a political procedure, and its rules and operation are governed by political entities, such as the Illinois Assembly.
You and I seem, actually, to be in agreement over Clinton. Yes there were not enough votes for removal, and he was convicted, but the process was a political one, not a criminal one. My secondary argument -- which you seem to disagree with is that that the political will to remove him from office did not exist because the limited effect on governance of those charges. Nonetheless, impeachment is not (nor should it be) limited to those convicted of criminal conduct. Rather, the federal constitution explicitly cites misdemeanors as a cause for impeachment; while the Illinois constitution is even broader then that.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1794, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S., at 627 n. 6, 89 S.Ct., at 1327; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1017, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 at 373, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971).
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Stupid really is a crime. For a criminal trial which can result in prison time, not so much.
As a writer for C&L and an Illinoisan, I have to respectfully disagree with this post.
Blago is corrupt AND stupid AND a batshit crazy egomaniac. You can get away with corrupt in Illinois, in fact in Cook County it's encouraged. But you can't do a three-fer.
Blago has tried to run the state government FROM Chicago single handedly from Day One. The state capitol is in Springfield, a three hour train ride away. We HAVE a Legislature of elected representatives, many of them good Democrats who want health care for poor people and public transportation for the elderly. For Blago to now try to paint the Legislature as "obstructionist" is so pathetic. And NOW he wants to run Illinois from several TV studios in New York? This is just adding to the eager desire of nearly everyone in Illinois to see this complete public embarrassment removed from office immediately. And yeah, Governor we're going to get our wish. We CAN impeach you "just because we don't like you." Plus, you're a bully and a crook. Good riddance.
I'm from Chicago too and I agree completely. It seems like most people here do.
Illinoisan? Really? Does one pronounce the "s"? And here I thought Michigander was bad. Well, I'm happy being an Oregonian (right here in Oregonia).
... Southern Orygun would it?
Anyway, the vast majority of "Illinoisans" usually say Chicagoan.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I just think we need to be very, very careful about allowing the feds to decide who gets to stay in public office (as we so recently saw in Alabama). They really do have a lot of power, and as the old saying goes, they could get a jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Never hurts to be skeptical, says I.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
I noticed your correction in the main post. Has this ham sandwich been formally indicted?
Last I read, Fitzgerald needed an extension for the grand jury.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
However, Blagobgrvshwk is not perceived by the public as being anything like Don Siegelman or Jim Guy Tucker, two governors railroaded by corrupt conservatives.
Blago's guilt or innocence of criminal charges might be debatable. His stupidity and shrubness (He has a special way of saying, "Do it my way or WE'RE GONNA DIIIIIE," just like a happily now-ex-president.) however, are not.
He's on TAPE!
What else do you need?
Late,
QSE32
Let's see . . . Wacky guy, . . . Bad Haircut . . . oh yeah, I think it was the day before the hammer fell that Blago announced that the state of Illinois would stop doing business with BANK OF AMERICA. Personally, I think it's the haircut!
Very Smart Susie.
I have to agree, I think Blago basically did not do anything legally wrong. Wishful thinking or bragging about getting something is probably not illegal.
The legal case is probably flimsy at best.
However, this guy is wacky and probably does not deserve to be Governor, but I do not really know. Maybe he has managed/governed Illinois very well. The people of Illinois put this wacky guy in office twice.
The reason Fitzgerald requested additional time for evidence gathering from the Grand jury is because more witnesses are feeling safe to speak out concerning this crook's law breaking.
Blagojevich surely isn't conducting himself like a man who knows he'll be exonerated.
"Blagojevich surely isn't conducting himself like a man who knows he'll be exonerated."
Yeah, more like a used car salesman...
Late,
QSE32
this is a state NOT FEDERAL impeachment! those laws are NOT proscribed by the fed. if you listened to the rachel show you'd realize that blago is buttonholed by some clauses.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
this is a silly article
Because if you read the same one's I have read (and listened to), the guy is crooked as they come. He admitted he wasn't going to 'give away the senate seat for free' for crying out loud. That, combined with the other conniving ways he tried to get around campaign finance laws and other regulations and the guy is a crook. Pure and simple.
I had a conversation this weekend with a friend who is a lawyer and probably playing the devil's advocate. He was saying that there was no explicit quid pro quo. I said that I thought there was an offer of 500,000$ and Blogojavich had asked for a future job for himself and his wife. Then my friend argued that nothing had been exchanged; to which I replied that I think he is required to report even being offered a bribe. Finally my friend explained that everyone does this in politics. I countered that I wouldn't mind if "everyone" were tried then.
Of course, Blogojavich is also a potty-mouth.
you don't need a great prosecutor to nab this 'tard. He's hanged HIMSELF and shown himself to be as corrupt as any run of the mill employee at fox!
Stop making excuses for this guy, it makes you look partisan
Late
QSE32
Comments are closed on this entry