Here are the government allegations that reference Blagojevich’s frustration with the Obama Camp's apparent unwillingness to pay Blagojevich for appointing Obama’s presumed favorite as Senator.
101. c. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck it up” for two years and do nothing and give this “motherf**ker [the President-elect] his senator. F**k him. For nothing? F**k him.”
ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will put “[Senate Candidate 4]” in the Senate “before I just give f**king [Senate Candidate 1] a f**king Senate seat and I don’t get anything.” (Senate Candidate 4 is a Deputy Governor of the State of Illinois). ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he needs to find a way to take the “financial stress” off of his family and that his wife is as qualified or more qualified than another specifically named individual to sit on corporate boards.
According to ROD BLAGOJEVICH, “the immediate challenge [is] how do we take some of the financial pressure off of our family.” Later in the phone call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that absent getting something back, ROD BLAGOJEVICH will not pick Senate Candidate 1.
HARRIS re-stated ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s thoughts that they should ask the President-elect for something for ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s financial security as well as maintain his political viability.
HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.
d. One of ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s advisors said he likes the idea, it sounds like a good idea, but advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH to be leery of promises for something two years from now. ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife said they would take the job now. Thereafter, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others on the phone call discussed various ways ROD BLAGOJEVICH can “monetize” the relationships he is making as Governor to make money after ROD BLAGOJEVICH is no longer Governor.
102. Later on November 10, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Advisor A discussed the open Senate seat. Among other things, ROD BLAGOJEVICH raised the issue of whether the President-elect could help get ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife on “paid corporate boards right now.” Advisor A responded that he “think[s] they could” and that a “President-elect . . . can do almost anything he sets his mind to.”
ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will appoint “[Senate Candidate 1 [[Obama’s presumed favorite]]] . . . but if they feel like they can do this and not f**king give me anything . . . then I’ll f**king go [Senate Candidate 5].” (Senate Candidate 5 is publicly reported to be interested in the open Senate seat). ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that if his wife could get on some corporate boards and “picks up another 150 grand a year or whatever” it would help ROD BLAGOJEVICH get through the next several years as Governor. . . .
104. On November 11, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS about the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH suggested starting a 501(c)(4) organization (a non-profit organization that may engage in political activity and lobbying) and getting “his (believed to be the President-elect’s) friend Warren Buffett or some of those guys to help us on something like that.”
HARRIS asked, “what, for you?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH replied, “yeah.”
Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that if he appoints Senate Candidate 4 to the Senate seat and, thereafter, it appears that ROD BLAGOJEVICH might get impeached, he could “count on [Senate Candidate 4], if things got hot, to give [the Senate seat] up and let me parachute over there.” HARRIS said, “you can count on [Senate Candidate 4] to do that.”
Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F**k them.”
UPDATE: If true, these allegations hint that Obama or his transition team were victims of an extortion/bribery attempt.
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:...
- Is It a Crime To Trade a Senatorial Appointment Decision for a Cabinet Job?
- It appears that Obama Camp was not willing to cut a deal with Blagojevich.
- Government Attempt to Get Newspaper Editorial Board Members Fired:
- SEIU ties in the Gov. BLAGOJEVICH Complaint.
- Holiday Sale: An Open Senate Seat From Illinois.
Many people have, in the past, become very pissed off when a new President suddenly began to forget or ignore their earliest supporters. This usually gives rise to all sorts of scandals (real and overblown) as the newly ignored start bitching too much and too publicly about the past possible misdeeds of the new President.
Election's over. Your delusions are past their expiration date.
I assume that this was directed at me.
What "objective evidence that Barack Obama refused a corrupt governor's demand for a quid pro quo?" All we've got is some hearsay. We don't have Obama himself doing anything.
What could possibly have possessed you to select the adverb "flatly"? You seem to know not only that Obama himself refused the demand, but also that he did so "flatly." How in blazes do you know that?
And if he did do it "flatly," (and personally), you have underscored my point: if someone asks you for a bribe, you go to the cops. Did Obama or anyone in his camp do that? Time will tell, and kudos to him if he/they did. But let's not extol the virtues of St. Barack just yet.
Who's got the tar and feathers?
Obviously. Just compare the writing to pieces we know he authored for the Law Review, or his thesis at Columbia.
Which brings me to the question: Is it illegal to be approached for a political bribe and not report it? It's certainly unethical, but is it illegal?
Blagojevich knew Obama. And he thought that he could be approached for political bribes. If Obama were known around Chicago as Mr. Clean, no attempt would even have been made.
I don't see how "objective" and "hearsay" are opposite here. Hearsay and reliable are not necessary the same thing.
But here we have the objective fact that Blajegovich was openly and repeatedly bitching about the president elect not being willing to "give him something" in exchange for naming the right person.
If the Obama transition office released a statement saying "we've certainly not promised any benefit to Blagojevich" would you find that any more reliable? I'd say it probably would be less.
On the broader topic, what someone posted above seems entirely likely too me. Obama, I suspect like most known politicians in Illinois, knew Blagojevich was a corrupt asshole. But they had to have at least some contacts with him because he was the governor. At (at the time at least) politically powerful enough to screw anyone he wanted.
Now he has his own power base and feels no obligation to talk to a corrupt asshole of a governor.
Obviously. Just compare the writing to pieces we know he authored for the Law Review, or his thesis at Columbia.
That made me chuckle, don't think it didn't!
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=496684
Bottom line: Blago and Obama aren't exactly friends.
...and "reliable" and "objective" are not necessarily the same thing, either. My goodness, we are slinging words around like agitated spider monkeys slinging feces today!
Blagojevich is also really, really, really, really stupid. Probably the more likely explanation.
1. Blago and his advisors thought Obama could be approached for a political bribe.
2. None of them are quoted as saying anything to the effect of "Forget it. We won't be able to get anything from Obama for appointing his choice to the Senate. We've never been able to do business with Obama in the past".
"Is Barack Obama implicated in any of this? At a press conference today, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said no: "I should be clear that the complaint makes no allegations whatsoever about the president-elect or his conduct."
"Articulate," too! Don't forget "articulate"! Obama's the first one, doncha know?
I'm definitely not on the bash-Obama bus, but that sentence alarmed me by what it carefully does NOT say.
Have you ever seen an example of a corrupt politician who actually expected another politician to be clean? it's just that "you haven't hit his price yet."
Further, it's been pretty obvious in national media that people expected Obama to have at least some input in who was nominated to replace him even though it was really Blagojevich's choice. I think tapes make it well known that (senate candidate 1) was known to be Obama's preferred candidate. Rod's reaction was "what's in it for me" and someone obviously got back to him "gratitude." And that's why he was angry.
I take that to mean you don't have a real response to the argument that a tape of Party B bitching to his associates about party A not making a deal is about as objective as you can get in this kind of situation?
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/09/rahm-blago/
"Blagojevich knew Obama. And he thought that he could be approached for political bribes. If Obama were known around Chicago as Mr. Clean, no attempt would even have been made."
Or Blago may have assumed that because he and his associates are corrupt, so is everyone else.
Political horse-trading in politics is considered the regular course of business. As a basic matter, if a Senator leaves offices and the Governor gets to appoint the successor, I would imagine that the Governor would naturally appoint someone they wanted in office, not who the outgoing Senator wants. It's the Governor's discretion, after all. There are things that the outgoing Senator can legally offer to help change the Governor's mind, but what Blagojevich wanted was definitely beyond the pale.
A possible, but highly unlikely, inference from "complaint makes no allegations whatsoever about the president-elect or his conduct" is that other future complaints might.
Since Awesome-O wont' go there I'll copy it.
Youtube link to relevant TV clip
Given both parties preference for using the F word, that discussion must have been something to listen too.
I would add the following equally cynical point: The fact that Obama declined to do business with Blago really is not all that probative of the president-elect's Mr. Clean credentials. Obama has clearly known for some time that Blago was being tailed by USA Fitzpatrick. For that reason alone he would have put out the word to his own people not to negotiate anything with Blago. It only makes sense. If Obama hadn't known Blago was radioactive, presumably he could have offered him SOMETHING legitimate for Illinois ( a new bridge or something). The fact that Obama's people would only offer him their "appreciation" suggests a conscious strategy of not dealing with him at all.
So they were talking to him. Blago wasn't 'radioactive' then.
I don't have, and never claimed to have, any evidence of impropriety on Obama's part. I was pointing out that his refusal to bargain with Blago isn't probative of Obama's being Mr. Clean because Obama knew Blago was under criminal investigation. Perhaps Obama is incorruptible, but this episode hardly proves it.
That was already out in the media. But Even then it would just imply that they knew that if he was under surveillance then they had to refrain from ANY hint of impropriety. Hence a "you'll get our gratitude" type of answer.
Blago was apparently just too stupid to pick up on it.
State Senator Alan Robbins (whoops, former state senator) wrote a marvelously thoughtful piece from his Terminal Island prison cell about how no California legislator survives his first re-election campaign without being corrupted. And he should know!
Fitz said: "I should be clear that the complaint makes no allegations whatsoever about the president-elect or his conduct."
Fitz did not say: "I should be clear that in all of the wiretapping and other investigations we performed, we didn't come across anything that suggests the President-elect knew about any of this."
Again I am not on the "Obama is dirty" bus, but Fitz's statement is very deliberately neutral in its precision.
And I know you're not one of the "Obama is dirty" people. You've been quite neutral all during this election]
The pointy heads here show convincingly that the complaint does not conclusively prove the negative that Obama's camp wasn't involved in any Senate seat-selling discussions, and Obama's defenders persuasively show that to the extent the complaint shows anything about Obama, it shows that he was unwilling to offer anything in return for his favored choice.
So: Until there is something more (i.e. the rumor about Rahm is confirmed), let's just agree that we don't know any more than that's in the complaint and that what's in the complaint does not suggest Obama was complicit. Obama is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as any other crypto-muslim terrorist.
Obama's going to the White House and Blagojevich is going to prison.
This is justice.
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But if I were Mr. Fitzpatrick I'd have an assistant US attorney talking today to 'Senate Candidates' 1 through 5, asking each of them: "So, when were you going to call us?"
And an aside to Mr. Clayton Cramer: as an Illinois resident, I guarantee you our politics and our politicians are dirtier than yours in Laficornia. Hell, ours are even dirtier than those in Joisey and Louisiana.
Personally, I was thrilled to see the headlines today. Much of my family lives in Illinois and I've been hearing about what a scumbag Blagojevich is for a long time. His daily commute on a private jet between Chicago and Springfield to insist on budget cuts was appalling.
You forgot the ear ring.
And if true, Team Obama and perhaps Obama himself failed to report this attempted extortion/bribery attempt.
Obama &Co. need to be EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS here. This situation is ripe for a perjury trap where Obama and his team members refuse to come clean with the about their involvement, testify to the police or under oath, lie to politically protect themselves and/or their boss, then are on the hooks for perjury.
Remember that this same US Attorney Fitzgerald ended up convicting Libby for perjury when he could not prove the underlying crime of disclosing a CIA agents identity.
I don't know, it may just be a disguise. Does Pres-Elect Obama have a lemony smell?
Seriously, I'm not a fan of Obama, but I was very happy when I read that he was willing to give only his gratitude.
For now, I'll do things the American way and assume Obama is innocent. Hopefully, (and I don't expect otherwise) nothing will come out of this investigation to change that. Anyone who wants Obama to have done something wrong has issues. Anyone who knows he had to have done something wrong also has issues.
Remember, whether or not you voted for Obama, he will be our president.
No, no. They were just negotiating, Chicago style.
From the man who actually requested the quid pro quo, recorded by authorities without his knowledge. That's a highly credible source.
"They didn't offer me anything but appreciation." That's what the man said. Sounds like a flat rejection to me.
You said personally; I didn't. Obama or, more likely, someone on his staff refused to offer a quid pro quo.
Of course, the idea that they should have gone to the police is nonsense. If people in Washington called the police every time someone hinted at exchanging a favor for a favor, the police would be dead of exhaustion before the week was out.
D
Ah, yes, the eternal cry of the internet libel "I don't have any facts to back up this serious accusation, or even to justify a reasonable suspicion, but . . . time will tell."
Obama's not a saint; he's just a guy with integrity, unlike the incompetent and corrupt scum the Republican party has inflicted on the country they claim to care about. Obama's a better politician and a better man than Bush, or McCain, or anyone else the Republicans have on tap. You know you can't contest that, so you repeat it sarcastically, trying to make it sound like an insult, when in fact, you're just admitting that "St. Barack" is more principled, as well as smarter and tougher, than the hapless losers he is replacing.
Thank you. Exactly what I was trying to say, but classier.
Also, I haven't heard anything exonerating Obama yet and I think it would be an error to interpret today's events as an exoneration. No one is going to accuse Obama unless they think they have an airtight case. The accusations will probably come long after the proverbial writing is on the wall.
Considering that Rezko hasn't been sentenced yet, Fitzpatrick might try to flip them so he can go after Obama with them as witnesses. I don't think he is politically motivated in the traditional sense (since he spent nearly 8 years chasing Bush over essentially nothing) so much as he is an ambitious little prick who wants to go after the biggest trophies possible.
I guarantee that if Blago and Rezko flip to save their own hides and can provide documentation of their claims, he will go after Obama in a second. We already know that Obama's real estate deals are under scrutiny, so I don't think there is a real mystery as to where the attack will likely come from.
There's nothing to suggest that Barack Obama rejected anything. In fact, he now denies speaking with R-Blag. Perhaps someone on his staff had contact with someone on the governor's staff, and refused the quid pro quo. But there's nothing to suggest that Obama did anything.
You still don't know if it was a "flat" rejection of the offer. Obama or his staff could have said "we'll consider it," or "that's an interesting offer," and ultimately politely declined. That sort of rejection wouldn't be "flat." You're using words without regard to what they mean.
If people in Washington called the police every time someone hinted at exchanging a favor for a favor, the police would be dead of exhaustion before the week was out.
Are you trying to tell me that what Blagojevich did was indistinguishable from standard political horse-trading?
Ah, yes, the eternal cry of the internet libel "I don't have any facts to back up this serious accusation, or even to justify a reasonable suspicion, but . . . time will tell."
Not what I said. But whatever, man: I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. If I say "this seems odd, but I don't have any proof, so I'll just have to wait and see what comes next," I'm accusing Obama of wrongdoing? Please.
Obama's a better politician and a better man than Bush, or McCain, or anyone else the Republicans have on tap.
Politician, sure. Man? Well, I'd say "only time will tell," but then you'd accuse me of slandering your hero.
And the "St. Barack" isn't an attempt to ridicule him for how wonderful he is. It's mockery of the legions who worship this man - a man greater than anyone in the Republican party - as a secular messiah. I don't know if that includes you, but surely you know some folks who it describes perfectly.
Three of his elections were against empty chairs. One by challenging the opponent's signatures to get on the ballot and two by having messy divorces unsealed.
Compared to that, fighting for votes is so twentieth-century. This is streamlined, effective, and reduces costs.
Is it illegal to be approached for a political bribe and not report it? It's certainly unethical, but is it illegal?
No.
There is a federal misprision statute that requires anyone knowing of a federal felony to turn the perp in, BUT it has been firmly interpreted to require more than nondisclosure, such as lying about it or receiving a payoff to keep quiet.
Jim Lindgren
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.