A portion of the criminal complaint against Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is on Smoking Gun.
I’ve never met Blagojevich, but I once met the man who made him Governor, David Axelrod. In the primaries, Blagojevich beat a good man (whom I was favoring), Chicago Public Schools Superintendent Paul Vallas. Vallas had done a terrific job improving Chicago schools, while fighting some of the very different school reforms of the three foundations on which Bill Ayers and Barack Obama worked together. But, as we’ve seen in the last year, Axelrod is a master campaign manager and Blagojevich ran on a platform of change – more particularly, ending “pay to play.”
Not only does the complaint refrain from making allegations of wrongdoing by Obama and the Obama transition team, at one point Blagojevich is recorded expressing frustration with the idea that Obama might expect his Senate candidate to be appointed without giving anything in return except gratitude.
The most interesting of the allegations involves SEIU, the ACORN-related union that has been close to Obama for many years. It appears that SEIU might have been pushing for the Senate slot the candidate whom Obama was thought to support. The complaint does not identify that candidate, though she is described as female and an Obama aide. My guess from clues is that she is Valerie Jarrett, who may have pulled out from consideration.
Eventually, Blagojevich was angling for one of two possibilities:
1. Obama to set up a $10 to $20 million non-profit organization for Blagojevich to run after he left office, perhaps with money from Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.
2. A three-way deal in which Blagojevich appoints Obama’s choice as Senator and SEIU hires Blagojevich’s wife for its Change to Win organization, and then hires Blagojevich to run Change to Win when he leaves office for several hundred thousand dollars a year.
The complaint alleges that Blagojevich did meet with SEIU about the Senate seat, but it's unclear whether any corrupt deal was discussed with SEIU.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- "Illinois Supreme Court rejects [Illinois Attorney General] Madigan bid to declare Blagojevich 'unfit'":
- More on the Illinois Attorney General's Asking the Illinois Supreme Court to Remove Gov. Blagojevich:
- Illinois Attorney General's Petition to Have Governor Removed:...
- Government Attempt to Get Newspaper Editorial Board Members Fired:
- SEIU ties in the Gov. BLAGOJEVICH Complaint.
- Holiday Sale: An Open Senate Seat From Illinois.
The next 4/8 years are going to be very long ones for you, I suspect.
Maybe I'm premature on that, but wait a couple weeks and see what the defense strategy is. I predict a world record in evolution, with the super prosecutor turning into a bad guy before our eyes.
On the merits, I'm non-plussed. We found another high government official willing to sell out to the highest bidder... shocker. At this point literally nothing surprises me. How anybody can stick to their usual partisan talking points after the 12 year wave of corruption that's hit the fed and large state governments is beyond me.
anon345's post was quite plainly tongue-in-cheek. At least I hope it was.
I agree Vallas was the better choice, not just in hindsight. There's speculation he'll run in 2010 as a Republican.
After reading the criminal complaint, it's clear that Blagojevich is just an idiot. He's well aware that he's under federal investigation but still makes incredibly incriminating statements. Although the Senate seat sale is the most sensational part of the criminal complaint, the other counts detailing Blago's M.O. for the last 6 years is typical Illinois politics.
This can't be good news for George Ryan, whose begging W. for a commutation/pardon. I doubt W. wants to get into the thicket of Illinois politics now.
Is this attribution to Axelrod correct? I think Axelrod worked for B. at some prior point but not in the governor's race.
I think the interesting question here is whether Obama was tipped by Fitzgerald's office about the ongoing investigation. (I'm not suggesting that it would have been improper for Fitzgerald to do that, just that it is an interesting question.)
Noone has come forward to publicly accuse Jim Lindgren of being a pigf****r.
Having never met him or a pig that he has f***ed, I cannot really comment on his predilections.
Though he is totally Obama's best friend, as is seen by this exchange:
Who but a friend would say that about The One?
It is true that there is a sentence in bold suggesting that none of the aforementioned is really relevant.
But let's get real, what do you think the actual result will be? Before long, he will be hailed as the savior of something or other. It's Illinois......
But the burning question still remains: What political hack will assume the sacred Obama Senate seat?
Indeed, although it appears he could use a thesaurus
'Governor Rod Blagojevich says he fears next week's vote could be a "Republican trap" to entangle presidential candidate Barack Obama in the gridlock over Illinois' ethics legislation.
'The Democratic governor says he worries Republican John McCain's campaign will accuse Obama of helping his old friends in Illinois if state senators override Blagojevich's veto on ethics legislation.
'Senate President Emil Jones said yesterday he decided to call senators back to work after Obama urged him to do so.
'If lawmakers go along with the ethics reform measures he wants, Blagojevich says Obama can brag about how he helped change the system in Illinois.
'But Blagojevich says he doesn't think Obama should be dragged into any of this.'
As an aside, I hope the SEIU gets busted up. The whole card-check system is a travesty, and I have met workers who have had SEIU thugs sit in their house and refuse to leave until they agree to sign the card checks. Ug.
Axelrod + Blagojevich + "change" = Corrupt Governor
Axelrod + Blagojevich + "change" > Good Man
Good Man > Obama + Ayers + bad school reforms
therefore:
Corrupt Governor > Obama + Ayers + bad school reforms
Corrupt Governor - Ayers - bad school reforms > Obama
That is, Obama is no better than Blagojevich, even if you take away Ayers and Obama's questionable school reform proposals.
I don't have the energy for it, but a similar analysis reveals how BHO is actually selling his own Senate seat, but is just cheap about it.
The more the likes of Lindgren, Bernstein et al focus on the Ayers/Axelrods/ACORNs (three As!!! Conspiracy!!!), the better for Obama. The facts as alleged keep pouring in in favor of Obama's version of events:
After a 90-minute free-for-all with the Chicago Tribune editorial board, Obama demonstrated to their (and later the public's) satisfaction that there wasn't much "there" there with respect to his relationship with Tony Rezco.
Blago's own voice in audio tape recordings evidences Obama's refusal to "pay for play."
Etc.
Look, I dispute much of the attempted smears on this site, but, as I always say to Bernstein, thank you for keeping them going. They do nothing by politically advantage my guy in office.
Now, how are Hussein and his Chicago pimps going to get rid of US Attorney Fitzgerald while maintaining the pretense that President Bush politicized the office of the US Attorney General? I mean besides not allowing the captive media to say anything about it.
Snaphappy + computer + pajama bottoms / half-eaten bag of Cheetos = Lococito
I hope Obama keeps Fitz on the job (yeah right)
It's not clear from the linked piece, but I think Blago was an Axelrod client when Blago was a U.S. Rep. back in the 90's.
I'm sure I don't know the whole story, but the above link makes me question how one can fairly say that Axelrod was "the man who made" Blago governor. Wouldn't Dick Mell be a better choice for that appellation?
You really think it helps Obama if the people he's associated with are actively involved in corruption, or are at least tainted by it? It helps him to have associated with crooks? I could see it not harming Obama in a measurable way if it turns out that his hands were clean, how does it help his political fortunes to be surrounded by Chicago sleaze?
If this continues, eventually the fog of scandal surrounding Obama is going begin to dissolve his Hopey Changey exterior. Maybe it will never get to that point. But I can't see how associating with crooks makes Obama look better.
Getting rid of Fitzgerald is as easy as a "walk" in Ft. Marcy Park.
The city had a new police chief back in the 60's that was brought in to show that the pols were acting to clean up another police corruption scandal. O.W. Wilson, I think. He was so straight that things got a little uncomfortable around town. So, amazingly, out of the blue the Ford Foundation or one of the large nonprofits endowed a teaching chair in criminal law at Univ of Wisconsin law school that was "offered" to OWW and which he took. I was always impressed by RJD's political skill.
Don't count your chickens yet. More federal subpoenas issued today in the Rezco case.
O may be inocent in the sale of his Senate seat but let us see if "Blago" has anything to bargain with.
I don't think the Chicago Tribune editorial board is the final say on this matter.
Anway, its Fitmas today, lets not spoli it with sniping!
Obama is smarter than to blow his presidency before it begins by getting wrapped up with clear bribery.
But if Obama knew that R-Blag was trying to buy an appointment from him, why didn't he report it to anyone? I'll give Obama kudos if it turns out that he or his campaign told the FBI about the attempted pay-for-play, but I'm not holding my breath.
Not necessarily. Former Illinois governor George Ryan was prosecuted by the same Fitzgerald and sentenced to prison. He is scheduled for release on July 4, 2013, when he will be 79 years old.
[asside: "booty house?!"]
Fitzmas! I had forgotten all about the happiest day of the year for the hate-Bush left! Merry Fitzmas to all!
Let's see what Jolly Old St. Fitz has in his sack...
For Johnny Liberal, Santa Fitz has... an indictment of Scooter Libby, a guy you never heard of before today! On a perjury charge with no underling crime! Sorry, no Karl Rove this year, Johnny Liberal! And no indictments for "outing" super-secret double-O "agent" Valerie Plame, either.
For Susie Conservative, Santa Fitz has... the governor of the state where the Obamessiah spent his entire political career, on bribery and corruption charges!
Who knew that Fitzmas was a conservative holiday? Ho ho ho!
Yes. I do think it helps Obama. My gut feeling is that the public has become sensitive to baseless Swift-boating and actually punishes perpetrators and rewards victims of it. I think this is furthered by good-faith investigation by the Media and the blogosphere on both sides of the political spectrum.
Let's frame it this way: Do you think Sarah Palin is hurt or helped by accusations that Bristol is actually her baby. Personally, I think she gets a lot of sympathy points by such silliness.
And to be very clear, let me note that my opinion about these smears is based solely on the evidence as known to the public. Maybe some day a tape will emerge with Obama promising to appoint someone to something for $1 million. But I expect that about as soon as I hear the tape about Michelle Obama complaining about "Whitey," or the proof that Obama was born in Uzbekistan.
But right now, the ceaseless efforts to tie Obama to something for which he is not responsible only makes his attackers look petty.
Obama > Corrupt Governor
even if your previous inequalities are correct.
Anyone, anyone...Al Maviva?
"The most interesting of the allegations involves SEIU, the ACORN-related union that has been close to Obama for many years."
Really? The most interesting allegation in the indictment of a sitting governor involves an "ACORN-related union that has been close to Obama for many years"??? (Nice passive voice, by the way!!!!)
I think that type of reading of the indictment really undermines your credibility.
(You mean, of course, the rumor that Trig was Bristol's baby.)
Hurt. I think it advances the left's preferred narrative, which is that she's a white trash bimbo and a liar.
I honestly don't know how much these sorts of rumors move undecided voters. Seems to me that whether you believe them is determined by the views of the candidates that you already have before you hear the rumor. See, e.g., Sullivan, Andrew, Trig-Truther-in-Chief.
But we all have a tendency to believe the first thing that we hear, and that goes especially for the lazy. The only people who are going to be sympathetic towards Palin or Obama for any false rumors about them are those who take the effort to find out what the truth is, and who has time for that?
So keep your ugly rumors away from my guys, thanks!
I have to wonder, is IL more corrupt than the other states? Are all corrupt?
I disagree. While Sullivan and a handful of diarists on Kos have kept the Trig baby rumor alive, too many others on the left have called them out for it. Similarly with some of the silly Obama smears on the right. In fact, some of the best posts I read during the campaign came from this very site taking issue with other bloggers on this site who bemoaned some of the dumber crap.
Look, there's no way to prove it empirically, but, even though I find Palin to be somwhat deplorable as a candidate for elective office, I'm one liberal who sympathized with her regarding that silly rumor.
All of that is true, but I just think that at some point the rumors start to pile up, which is kind of what I was getting at when I said that the Trig rumor fit the left's preferred narrative for Palin. Perhaps one or two false rumors can evoke more feelings of sympathy than scorn, but eventually the sheer volume of rumors has to start to make casual observers think there's got to be something to some of them.
And that's if - and it's a big if - the rumors can actually be debunked. Many rumors are simply unfalsifiable. Can Richard Gere PROVE that he never stuffed a gerbil? Unless you can account for his whereabouts and activities for every moment of his life, you simply cannot.
We're not going to agree on this. But we do agree on one thing: the more news that surfaces about corrupt Chicago Democrats, and the more of Barack Obama's associates who are investigated, indicted, and jailed, the better!
No passive verbs appear in the sentence of Prof. Lindgren's that you quoted. The verb you may be confused about is "has been". That's just the pluperfect tense of the verb "to be".
E.g. "I am close; I was close, I have been close".
I'm just rooting for a good fight here. I don't have an ideological dog in this fight. The Republicans are smug and based on the last 4-5 years, somewhat corrupt, and they only occasionally nod to libertarian, conservative, or even fiscally conservative ideas; meanwhile the Dems are hysterical and at least the ones in congress appear determined to get just as corrupt as the Republicans, only faster, not wanting to take 10 years to do so. None of the prominent elected leaders in either party mean what they say, so basically the current policy debates, at some level, are just enormous piles of meaningless poo. They mean nothing, and it is amazing to me that people are even arguing about this stuff.
So I've decided to just laugh at various partisans as they beshit themselves and prostitute themselves for whichever party told them the most personally appealing lie. Grab yourself some popcorn and a beer, Sarcastro. It's going to be a fun four years.
Fitzgerald = Ken Starr seems to be rather overstating things, especially given Fitzgerald's history. It also seems to imply that there is not much to the complaint, which would be surprising considering Fitz arrested the governor.
One usually doesn't do that unless one is pretty damn sure of oneself.
I was quite excited to pointing out that unlike with Scooter, no one is defending the indicted guy. Thus, despite the Right desperately trying to gin up a strawman, it seems Dems keep the moral high ground here.
But then your comment seemed to be a counterexample. Your clarification, though, seems to make it clear you are not assuming innocence, but rather not presuming guilt.]
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.