Breaking News: U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Is 'Senate Candidate No. 5,' Law Enforcement Sources Tell

[maddezmom]

Source: ABC

Chicago Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) is the anonymous "Senate Candidate #5" whose emissaries Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich reportedly claimed offered up to a million dollars to name him to the U.S. Senate, federal law enforcement sources tell ABC News.

The politician says he is not a target of the Blagojevich investigation.
According to the FBI affidavit in the case, Blagojevich "stated he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided ROD BLAGOJEVICH" with something "tangible up front."


Jackson Jr. said this morning he was contacted yesterday by federal prosecutors in Chicago who he said "asked me to come in and share with them my insights and thoughts about the selection process."


Jackson Jr. said "I don't know" when asked if he was Candidate #5, but said he was told "I am not a target of this investigation."




Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/ConductUnbecoming/story?id=6431739&page=1

[marshall]

1. Uh-oh

This is going to get very interesting.

[Raskolnik]

2. Damn. I hope the "emissary" was acting without authority and without JJJ's knowledge.

But that might be hoping against hope.

[for-q-bush]

79. He's probably guilty, but I think we can save him if we just keep saying Blago is a liar and crook

[Idealism]

3. No wonder Obama doesn't like JJJ

Maybe he smelled him?

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

72. since when doesn't obama like JJJ?

[Blaq Dem]

75. He likes JJJ, but not JJ

I think his JJJ's daddy might be involved.

[ananda]

4. Jackson is going down, too.

He'll be indicted next.

[countingbluecars]

6. For what?

All we have are the words of Blago that he might get money from Candidate 5. If money changed hands, I guess it is a different story.

[grasswire]

8. Jonathan Alter said yesterday on MSNBC...

...that Blago would try to take others down; would create a lot of chaos.

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. Damn. Why can't they get a big fish in Florida?

[grasswire]

44. because this is a two-fer

It allows Republicans to hamstring Obama even before he's POTUS. The fallout from this allows four or eight years of the politics of personal destruction. We thought the attacks on the Clintons were bad?! It's gonna rip this country apart. I always thought the PTB wanted a race war, and they might get one.

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. This is the absolute wrong attitude to take.

Obama has a chance to make a real difference. The Blagos of the world are allowed to run free because everyone seems to think this is a two party system of government, and if one party shows a weakness, the other party benefits from it. I'm here to tell you, no sir, we aren't that naive. We know that both parties have corruption problems and we want it cleaned up sooner than later.

There are other Blagos out there, and Fitz did right to start in Chicago, because Obama will come out of this with the authority to clean up house everywhere else.

[awoke_in_2003]

49. "There are other Blagos out there"

Yes there is. They make up 90% of every politician at EVERY level. Blago's big sin- getting caught.

[Sex Pistol]

66. You nailed it. But 90% may be a little on the low side.

[The Backlash Cometh]

74. They morph into these crooked creatures because they think they

can get away with it. And then they corrupt everyone else around them.

[Sex Pistol]

80. What I find most disturbing is the manner in which corruption influences people

who would not be affected if they were not exposed to it. Sure, there are the fence sitters who are easily swayed; but, when I see genuinely good people transformed into sinister degenerates it repulses me. I am absolutely convinced that that age old adage which tells us that power corrupts is absolutely true.

And I suspect that is why some very powerful people have simply walked away.

[The Backlash Cometh]

81. Slam dunk, bro.

When you think about it, those who are truly corrupt need to find useful idiots to serve as cover to their misdeeds. When an entire community is corrupted, it's hard to know where to focus your ire.

[No Elephants]

58. The POTUS has that authority, no matter what Fitz does or does not do.

[grasswire]

62. where did I say what you think I said?

I believe that the DoJ should seek the truth and expose those who break the law, no matter where the chips fall. That has been my position since the VRWC started attacking the Clintons.

Clean it all up. Pull all the strings and see where they lead. The end result will be the destruction of our civil fabric.

We are in a civil war, of sorts. Some people want to fight, and fight dirty. Other people want everyone to just get along, to move civilization toward enlightenment.

[acmavm]

48. No it doesn't.

[LiberalEsto]

20. Unless he squealed. nt

[Piewhacket]

21. not sure about that...

the report I saw advised an (unconfirmed) offer had been made to
participate in fundraisers. Assuming such offer was made and
came from a staffer, is that enough?

I have a treatise by Noonan on Bribery in my library. I've read
a bit of it in the past. Too lazy to dig it out in such a clear (alleged)
case against the Gov., but the (alleged) jackson stuff seems yet
very thin.

Not that any of it is commendable, mind you. It isn't.
I'm just talking about criminality.
Remember, there is a certain er.. flexibility... in politics
which must be allowed or it does not work. Just being realistic.
Not condoning, just cautioning.

So all I'm saying it isn't clear. Lets wait for more.

[Usrename]

38. There ya go.

What would you say are the specific acts that make this such a clear case against the governor?

Is advising a newspaper that is in financial straights that they should change personnel if they want help a crime?

Is it criminal for congress to recommend resignations and changes in leadership before bailing out the auto makers?

Seriously.

[Chan790]

45. Intent...

it's corruption if you attempt to use public office, whether to solicit bribe or to effect policy or personnel decisions, for personal gain. (Personally, I think by that definition there are a hell of a lot more pols who belong in jail than there are currently pols in jail for corruption.)

The difference is thus one of intent. There is a world of difference between a Senator demanding that the CEO of GM be fired for the manner of how he ran the company (a move I disagree with, but that's a different discussion. It still makes a good example.) and Blago demanding that an editor at the Trib be fired in exchange for a loan because that editor editorializes opinions critical of the governor's office.

Also, you're putting the cart before the horse...he's been indicted, not convicted. Indictment only requires the supposition of a crime and the capacity to present exhibits and testimony to a jury tasked to decide whether there is sufficient evidence of the crime alleged. If he is convicted, evidence will have come out during the trial to make the issue of his guilt certain beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not our place to present the clear case of Rod Blagojovich's guilt to you on the internet, it's Patrick Fitzgerald's place to present it in a court of law to a jury made up of 12 Illinoisans tasked with determining the governor's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the facts presented.

[Usrename]

50. I'm not putting anything before anything.

He was ARRESTED.

My question is this: why not arrest those in the Senate that have done the exact same thing?

You say something about intent and personal gain, but it doesn't seem to quantify or qualify ANY distinction in their BEHAVIOR.

Why is one behavior assumed to be criminal while the other is not?

I guess you have to assume that there is nothing of any political gain to be had by the senators' actions, although I don't know if that is a rational assumption.

[Piewhacket]

63. Because...

You asked: why not arrest those in the Senate that have done the exact same thing?

The answer is that Fitzgerald has (by now, and reportedly) demonstrated his probable cause.
I haven't seen it but probable cause is, as you obviously know, enough to justify the arrest.
"Why not arrest others" is is an appeal to ignorance and not grounds for release in the face of probable cause of guilt.

That's our law, right? Otherwise every person could successfully argue it.
However, if you wish to argue a (very difficult) case of selective prosecution,
which I must say I do not see the taint of here, then present it by all means, I'll
listen, but I must respectfully doubt you can effectively accomplish such a task here.
Send it to the gov's lawyers.

Of the case against the gov, what has been released by the AG is admitted (by me)
as not sufficient , mostly its inflammatory and prejudicial. Politics. After all,
the AG just arrested a GOVERNOR, for god sake, he better show something to folks.
What he showed was intent, but does not demonstrate (as far as I can tell) an overt act.
It doesn't take much, as you probably know, to satisfy that element. Such was
probably shown in the probable cause hearing. I'd bet Fitz has it.

From here the AG either has enough on the gov, or he doesn't. I'll abide by a
jury decision on it. But by now the public has heard enough to decide that a
new governor would be best. From here I doubt anyone is going to invest a nickle of
sympathy in Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

[Usrename]

67. So, do you admit that you do not know the answer to my question?

If all you want to talk about is the POLITICS of it, and not the LEGALITY, then I have a very different take on it all.

It smells of the same BS as the Martha Stuart case. She was the SCAPEGOAT for the crooks that stole all the money.

This is the SAME type of scapegoating. He will be made an example of to cover up for all the corrupt politicians that will be allowed to get away with their crimes.

Sarah Palin just gave back the stuff she was caught red-handed with, and no more questions were ever raised.

Don't you see the real politics that are at play here?

[Piewhacket]

69. I answered quite fully. Really. On the legal merits...

It just wasn't what you apparently wanted to hear.

As I explained...
A judge has now determined there is probable cause to
bind the defendant to answer the charge. Few laws have
more impeccable pedigree for "legality" than that.
It wasn't even a BS grand jury indictment. The AG had to
prove up his cause. Sounds pretty "legal" to me.

Is the governor guilty of something? That will be decided in further
proceedings, not by us. (Impeccable legal authority omitted,
but you might trust me on that one.)

Yeah, yeah you wanted me to tell you what the Torah says
while standing on one foot. Very well. (Standing on one foot)
it says to love thy fellow man, the rest is commentary. OK?

Or you wanted me to tell you what Prof. John Noonan's 800
page treatise "Bribes" says about it while standing on
one foot. Fine. (Standing on one foot) For as long as man
has kept records, 5000 years and more, and in every society
known to history, bribery has been and is illegal. OK?

You want to know what constitutes bribery, then (for a start)
read Noonan's book. You can't tell the difference between a master politician
who negotiates exchanges for the benefit of his constituency,
and a crook who steals from his constituency? Then stay out
of politics, and also please refrain from voting.

Now you seem an intelligent person. I have tried to give you very good
answers. I'll try some more if you really want. You want to know
if this is a selective prosecution, or somehow unfair to the governor?
Hard to say, we have not the facts before us, a jury will possibly
decide it, then possible appeal, then we might have a better view
of the case.

I can say that this is a governor who was poised to appoint someone to
a high office, and the evidence suggests he was treating the appointment
as his personal property. What's wrong with that? Its theft of his
master's property, for which the master may rightly object.

[Usrename]

73. From the affidavit that accompanies the indictment:

Warning PDF: http://media.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/blagojevich_cr...

Count Two


Beginning no later than November 2008 to the present, in Cook County, in the Northern District of Illinois,
defendants ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS, being agents of the State of Illinois, a State government
which during a one-year period, beginning January 1, 2008 and continuing to the present, received federal benefits
in excess of $10,000, corruptly solicited and demanded a thing of value, namely, the firing of certain Chicago
Tribune editorial members responsible for widely-circulated editorials critical of ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH,
intending to be influenced and rewarded in connection with business and transactions of the State of Illinois
involving a thing of value of $5,000 or more, namely, the provision of millions of dollars in financial assistance by
the State of Illinois, including through the Illinois Finance Authority, an agency of the State of Illinois, to the
Tribune Company involving the Wrigley Field baseball stadium; in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 666(a)(1)(B) and 2.



This question that I am asking is about "a thing of value, namely, the firing of certain Chicago Tribune editorial members" which seems to be worth something here, something of personal value, but not worth anything in the case where the senators wanted to fire the CEO of GM.

I'm afraid it may not be as simple as you want to make it out to be. What is the something of personal value that Fitz is referring to? As far as I can tell he wanted to receive positive editorial support from the Tribune.

In the Senate auto maker bailout debacle, many senators also spoke out in favor of making the bailout conditional on firing someone. A whole lot of editorial support for these senators followed their remarks in calling for dismissals.

Maybe there is a difference there that you can discern, other than the obvious stuff about him being arrested while they were not arrested, or that he is a bad person and they are good people, or that he wants to screw the public and they only wish to help the poor taxpayers.

Is there any difference of any quantifiable substance here?

[Piewhacket]

77. Lots of questions, I see...

You seem to want to talk about Senators and GM. Are you working up
an indictment against those who "spoke out in favor of making the bailout
conditional on firing" GM managment? Perhaps a new thread would be best for that.
The thread might begin with a discussion of the "Speech and Debate" clause
(Article I, Section 6, Clause 1) of the US Constitution.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... if you are asking whether demanding the "firing of
certain Chicago Tribune editorial members" is demanding a "thing of value" under the
applicable law, then I suggest that might have to be decided in the case, assuming
it is ever reached, which I wonder if it will. My personal opinion, for
what it is worth, is that it does satisfy the element and its not
even a close call. Why would you even think otherwise? I suggest that hanging a defense
on that premise alone would probably get the defendant hanged. Just my humble opinion,
worth two inflatocents. Pay at the window.

(Barney Franks sez that you hafta learn to become a complete ingrate. btw)

There are possibly better defenses for the governor. For one thing the statute is 18 USC 666.
For gosh sakes, that's the mark of the beast! Evil evil evil. Who named it that, the devil?
ITS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL!
Seriously, the statute may have some serious problems (as applied). Its just so ripe for over
reaching, and Fitz had to use it preemptively to stop the appointment, and may not have all
his ducks lined up. But. again, my own view is that if there is a case that is proper under
that statute, Fitz has probably brought it.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01001.htm
So there may be hope for the governor, criminality-wize, not that I care a rats ass about him
personally. Politically, he's toast. Let him resign. Let this be a warning to others.
PARTY OVER! NOT FOR SALE!

[IsItJustMe]

68. Where did you pull that bit of knowlege from? I think I know.

[NeoConsSuck]

70. And what are you basing your info on?

Are you privy to something that even major news organizations are not privy to??

From CNN.COM:

The law enforcement official said there was no evidence -- other than the governor's taped remarks -- that Jackson or others on his behalf ever approached the governor in an improper way.

The official also emphasized that no conversations with Jackson were ever picked up on bugs or wiretaps, and there is no evidence that he was aware of anything improper.

[still_one]

5. I wonder if fitzy will give anyone a chance to change their story like he did for rove? /nt

[Sebass1271]

7. if the is NOT the target of this investigation then, WHO IS

the target? they have started folks.. the Feds, big corporations, republicans have started with their Whitewater War #2

[Bette Noir]

10. So, it's okay to sell a Senate seat, as long as it's a Democrat doing it?

If Blago goes ahead with appointing someone, I hope the Senate refuses to seat him. We need an un-tainted pol in that office.

[jwirr]

15. Or I hope the senate does a full investigation of how he was picked. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

51. "We need an un-tainted pol in that office"

Thank you. That was the best laugh I had all day.

[Terran]

43. Oh get real, will you please?

Sometimes Democrats really are at fault for what happens to them.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frazzled]

11. Unless money changed hands, or a deal by both parties was caught on tape ...

was a crime committed here?

I say this being no fan of either the governor nor JJJ, and feel pretty vindicated in those opinions now. But I am starting to get confused about the legal ramifications here. Planning slimy stuff is one thing ... but if it never gets executed, is it a crime?

[dysfunctional press]

13. conspiracy to commit a crime is definitely a crime itself.

a felony, in most cases.

[Kali]

14. the word conspiracy comes to mind and yes it is a crime

[sufrommich]

16. Lots of politicians have gone down without either one of those

bits of evidence being present. Larry Craig wasn't actually having sex in the airport bathroom.

[madrchsod]

33. ah ha! you realise this also....

[dysfunctional press]

12. triiple-j was only playing along to perform his own investigation, to try and nab blago himself...

i'm guessing...:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

54. "got your number..."

[Chisox08]

17. I doubt it's Jesse Jackson Jr.

First off he doesn't have the type of money that has been rumored to have been offered for the Senate seat. I believe that it could be Mayor Daley's brother Bill Daley.

[maddezmom]

18. I think he could be candidate #5, but I'm thinking he's not the person who offered the money

[Chisox08]

19. It seems like he is Canidate #5

According to the Chiacgo Suntimes http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1323698,jesse-jackson-jr-blagojevich-rod-arrest-121008.article">Chicago Suntimes
Edit for spelling

[maddezmom]

30. but still doesn't mean that he offered the money

So far it's just Blago's account of a visit from a emissary of JJJ offering money. We don't know who the emissary is, if they have him on tape, etc.

[dysfunctional press]

59. maybe dad had something to do with it...?

the pugs would LOVE that.

[kudzu22]

65. Someone must have made the offer.

[eyesroll]

22. MSNBC is confirming.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. From an independent source? Or are they quoting the ABC source?

[eyesroll]

39. Dunno...it's on the crawl... nt

[librechik]

24. Ok, not a target, but is he a subject?

dragging old FBI talk out of my Scooter Libby files.

[EFerrari]

25. I hope he comes out of this okay.

[Two Americas]

26. oh those dirty Democrats

And the squeaky clean Republicans are riding in to clean up the town.

This is all so surreal - the most corrupt administration in the history of the country is somehow untouchable - many here are still arguing that "there is no evidence" and such - and we are being asked to believe that politics as usual in modern America represents some high crimes the Democrats are involved in.

The entire political system is awash in bribes, kickbacks, favors and every sort of corruption imaginable. By selectively targeting certain Democrats and then spinning everything for maximum propaganda effect - "he was trying to sell Obama's Senate seat" - a political agenda is being advanced here.

This is the same prosecutor who gosh gee after months and months and months of pious posturing and bullshit just could hardly find a thing in the Bush administration worth investigating or prosecuting.

[humbled_opinion]

32. Nominated...

This is exactly how I feel too. When Democrats are put in a position that they have to chose someone on behalf of the people, then no matter who they choose is going to be a matter of national importance and further advance or hurt some agenda or another.

How bout we give the guy some Benefit here, sure he said some stupid things but no matter how you slice it, its politics as usual just verbalized poorly. If he or JJJ are guilty of a Crime then prosecute them but knock off all this endless investigation trying to wtich hunt on an administration that hasn't even been sworn in yet.

ENOUGH !! We have bigger fish to fry here folks the country is in the crapper, If Fitz actually had done his job maybe this nightmare would have been over 3 years ago.

[Two Americas]

37. it is absurd

On every issue, within minutes of a story breaking, we have cleverly worded talking points being disseminated here that are anti-Left. anti-Labor, and that mitigate or excuse any cause for suspicion of the right wingers.

I am definitely of the "intelligent design" rather than "evolution" theory when it comes to these talking points, this relentless political propaganda. Somewhere, somehow, these campaigns are being carefully and intentionally designed.

ALL politicians say "if I agree with you on this, or do what you want me to do, what will you give me in return?" Happens every day in Congress. That does not mean "selling the Senate seat (Senate seat of Obama they always add - hello? Are the lights on here for anyone?) to the highest bidder?" Well, of course it really does, but how on earth do people imagine it to come down every day with every politician?

The massive unprecedented corruption in the Bush administration - which, search as he may, our "I'd have his baby" hero Fitzgerald, just could not find much of anything whatsoever that would warrant investigation or prosecution - goes unpunished.

Fitzgerald's "warrant" and charges, and the press conference. are obviously and transparently an attempt to sell the public on a particular view, they are clearly politically motivated.

"But look over here at what a rotten guy the governor is" is an intentional distraction.

[Critters2]

40. They governor is a rotten guy. If he's a distraction, there's no one to blame but him. nt

[Two Americas]

78. what does that mean?

What does that have to do with anything?

[rch35]

27. the return of the Jackson 5......

man

that pun is so bad it embarrasses me

[AndrewP]

41. Keep hope alive!

Sorry.....



I'm foragainst JJJ. I'm just going to lay back and watch how this story unfolds.

[skeewee08]

28. Where did JJJ get that kind of money from?

If it's true.

[madrchsod]

31. not true!

jjj and jj are businessmen

[kudzu22]

64. You're kidding, right?

Jesse Jr. got an Anheuser-Busch distributorship from the corporation as a payoff to make his dad quit accusing them of racism. I'm sure that's a pretty sweet money machine (as is Mrs. McCain's distributorship).

[madrchsod]

29. attack of the trolls !

i love the fact that many here have`t a clue about the families that run this state.

[skeewee08]

34. Just because we do not know does not mean we are troll!

I asked a question, because last night on Keith O there was a gentlemen on there(can't recall his name) that said it's probably not JJJ because he does not have that kind of money. Like I said in my post"If it's true" I asked a question no need to attack.

[madrchsod]

35. i`m not accusing you

the democratic party here is not a monolith. i doubt jjj or his staff would take a call from blago. in fact if they wee approached they would have reported it.

[skeewee08]

36. Agree,

I don't think JJJ would take a call from Psycho Blago either, he(JJJ) just seem's so different from his father(wanting to cut Obama u no what off), and this would be a shock.

[goodhue]

47. Nothing in complaint confirms candidate 5 would pay anything or was even aware of Blago's shakedown

Here is full text of the relevant paragraphs:

a. On December 4, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke to Advisor B and
informed Advisor B that he was giving Senate Candidate 5 greater consideration for the
Senate seat because, among other reasons, if ROD BLAGOJEVICH ran for re-election
Senate Candidate 5 would “raise[] money” for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, although ROD
BLAGOJEVICH said he might “get some (money) up front, maybe” from Senate Candidate
5 to insure Senate Candidate 5 kept his promise about raising money for ROD
BLAGOJEVICH. (In a recorded conversation on October 31, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH
described an earlier approach by an associate of Senate Candidate Five as follows: “We were
approached ‘pay to play.’ That, you know, he’d raise me 500 grand. An emissary came.
Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a Senator.”)

b. Later on December 4, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke to Fundraiser
A. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated he was “elevating” Senate Candidate 5 on the list of
candidates for the open Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated he might be able to cut
a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided ROD BLAGOJEVICH with something
“tangible up front.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH noted he was going to meet with Senate
Candidate 5 in the next few days. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to reach out to
Individual D, an individual who ROD BLAGOJEVICH is attempting to obtain campaign
contributions from and who, based on intercepted phone calls, ROD BLAGOJEVICH
believes to be close to Senate Candidate 5. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell
Individual D that Senate Candidate 5 was very much a realistic candidate for the open Senate
seat, but that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was getting “a lot of pressure” not to appoint Senate
Candidate 5. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that ROD
BLAGOJEVICH had a problem with Senate Candidate 5 just promising to help ROD
BLAGOJEVICH because ROD BLAGOJEVICH had a prior bad experience with Senate
Candidate 5 not keeping his word. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell
Individual D that if Senate Candidate 5 is going to be chosen to fill the Senate seat “some of
this stuffs gotta start happening now . . .right now. . . and we gotta see it. You understand?”
ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A that “you gotta be careful how you express that and
assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?” ROD
BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D if there is “tangible political support
(campaign contributions) like you’ve said, start showing us now.” Fundraiser A stated he
will call Individual D on the phone to communicate ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s message. ROD
BLAGOJEVICH responded that “I would do it in person. I would not do it on the phone.”
ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to communicate the “urgency” of the situation to
Individual D.

[msanthrope]

52. So you've got Candidate # 5, Individual D, and Fundraiser A....

From this paragraph, it is carefully worded to suggest that Candidate 5 was not in direct contact with either Blago or Harris. This suggests to me that Candidate 5 is cooperating with authorities, and in return, is getting plausible denability.

That leaves Blago, Fundraiser A, and Individual D up shit's creek.

[No Elephants]

60. Why assume Blago speaks only 100% truth to advisors and fundraisers? He's a dishonest man. nt

[maddezmom]

53. Attorney: US Rep. Jesse Jackson is 'Candidate 5'

Attorney: US Rep. Jesse Jackson is 'Candidate 5'
11 minutes ago

CHICAGO (AP) — A lawyer for U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. says the congressman is the "Senate Candidate 5" mentioned in the federal corruption complaint against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Attorney James D. Montgomery Sr. said Wednesday that Jackson never had a "pay-to-play" conversation with Blagojevich.

~snip~


Montgomery says Jackson "never authorized anyone to seek the governor's support" for anything of value.

And he says Jackson isn't aware of any associates having made such an overture on his behalf.

Montgomery says Jackson learned he was mentioned in the complaint against Blagojevich the night before the governor's arrest on Tuesday.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jclordTOUrAKPT4gqF4lTowSgNDQD9502QS83

[NoodleyAppendage]

55. Good. I hope he goes down in flames. I'm so friggin' sick of political dynasties.

Jackson had nothing really to offer above other candidates other than his last name. We need to move away from political dynasties and elect representatives that have the best credentials.

j

[No Elephants]

61. Nothing to offer but his last name? Is that true simply because someone says it? He's a 13 year

U.S. Congressman, an attorney and a civil rights activist.

[NoodleyAppendage]

71. And...he also has people supporting him or working for him that tried to buy a Senate seat.

Fuck 'em. He's roasted and that Senate seat is now gone.

J

[No Elephants]

76. Entirely different issue from his surname, isn't it? And, so far, we have only Rod's

statements to his cohorts on that one. It may be true, but we have insufficient info now. Even if true, that is different from the so-called dynasty issue.

[No Elephants]

56. Not a target of this investigation. Is he a target of another investigation?

[Gin]

57. TV talking heads said he met with Gov B. for 90 minutes Monday....

wonder what that was about.