Why Blagojevich Might Be Acquitted

[Better Believe It]

Weekend Edition
December 12 / 14, 2008

What Really Set Fitzgerald Off? The Obscenities?
Why Blagojevich Might Be Acquitted
By LAWRENCE R. VELVEL
Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, is the author of Thine Alabaster Cities Gleam and An Enemy of the People.

With regard to the claims of crime that Patrick Fitzgerald spoke of in his press conference, and only with regard to those matters, don't be utterly shocked if ultimately Blagojevich is acquitted on those particular claims. Maybe Fitzgerald can make a conspiracy to commit those crimes stick, but, on the other hand, maybe even conspiracy charges will lose.

.... I am sour on Fitzgerald. The cause of this disgruntlement is the Libby case. There Fitzgerald came on very powerfully at his initial press conference, where he made it appear that he was after really big game. But he was the lion that roared but then belched forth only a mouse, not going after or convicting Libby for what was done to Plame and not touching a hair of the head of the arch-criminals Cheney and Rove -- not to mention Bush. So when Fitzgerald came on so strong about Blagojevich, this writer's reaction was that it was wise to be skeptical unless Fitzgerald showed a lot more than he apparently could.

What did Fitzgerald show at his press conference? He seems to have shown two things. He showed conversations, basically among Blagojevich and advisors as I understand it, about economic and political benefits that Blagojevich and his wife might obtain from a Senate appointment. (There may have been conversations with potential buyers of the Senate seat or their representatives, but mainly the conversations discussed by Fitzgerald were among Blagojevich people as I understand it. (Am I wrong about this?)

Now, there are millions of us -- probably scores of millions of us, by now maybe close to hundreds of millions of us -- who deplore and excoriate this kind of selling of political office. But does this constitute crime if it hasn't reached the stage of offers given or received? e.g., if it hasn't reached the stage where Blagojevich or an adviser says to or makes it known to, e.g., Jesse Jackson or one of his advisors that "We will appoint you to the Senate in return for one million dollars"? I really don't know the answer to this question. While I personally think matters should not have to come to this stage before a crime is committed, it is my bet that, except possibly for a conspiracy charge, the semi-intellectually-corrupt federal courts look at it differently than I do.

Involved here is a question which I have so far not seen mentioned or discussed anywhere, with the exception of one article in the NYT. (Have I missed such discussions?) Isn't it true that politicians at every level -- local, state, national and, we have been finding out, international -- trade office for money every day, literally every day? For scores of years it has been a standing farce that ambassadorships are in effect sold to the rich for campaign contributions. Membership on state boards or commissions is traded for campaign contributions. It has for many decades been a standing practice for politicians to cast their votes in Congress in favor of positions desired by industries that give them money for their campaigns. (Elizabeth Warren tells a remarkable story about Saint Hillary and the banking industry in this regard.) Some Senators have been bought, paid for and owned by particular companies or industries. Wasn't a guy named Nelson Aldrich known as the Senator from the New York Central 110 years ago? Was Robert Kerr, as a Senator, anti the oil industry in which he was a very wealthy man? Perhaps you've heard of Kerr Magee -- wasn't that his company if I'm not mistaken? Why did Billy Tauzin land a multimillion dollar per year job when he left Congress? Why do lobbyists raise millions for politicians? And has everyone forgotten about the Lincoln Bedroom business in the Clinton Administration? What was the Lincoln Bedroom business all about, if not all-important access and proximity in return for campaign money.

Please read the entire article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/velvel12122008.html

[FARAFIELD]

1. It would be a waste of my time to say how clueless this guy is

But Ill give a short answer. One is that its only a two count criminal complaint. There is nothing to stop them from other charges. Two, Fitzgerald upheld his duty to the constitution by not allowing the seat to actually get "sold", so thus he had to arrest BLAGO, and not simply go to the Grand Jury. All the stuff about the seat was for Probable cause. But Ill clue the writer in on something, talking to another person in the way he did IS a crime, plain and simple. Perhaps the writer didnt read the complaint. He ought have. He has more, its just that the sale of the seat meant he had to act. Fitzgerald "bitter"? really. What does the writer base that on. Quite possibly the crappiest, least informed article Ive seen in the last week.

[leftstreet]

2. Fitz should have let him sell the seat. Then he'd get a twofer!

[Radical Activist]

4. Yep. Total moron.

There's a lot about Blago he obviously doesn't know. This guy is mad about Plame and he's wrong to make a lot of assumptions based on that one case.

[Better Believe It]

5. Right! He's Only The Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law

so what does he know about laws?

[Octafish]

10. And he's only been one of the top legal eagles calling for impeaching the war criminal.

http://impeachpac.org/citizens

He's got to be a idiot.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. The stuff about being shocked about the language does sound idiotic

and smacks of desperation to fill up the number of words the article required.

[madrchsod]

3. yes this guy is clueless and worse

his hatred for Fitzgerald clearly shows through out his article.

[mackerel]

6. What's up with Rahm Emanuel?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1326788,rahm-emanuel-blagojevich-obama-121108.article

[TankLV]

7. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what this person says...

It could very well be true...

[zazen]

8. I've been asking this around here all week--everyone knows ambassadorships go to fundraisers

What's the difference? We can all talk in code. . . had he said in code something like, I want to select a person for the senate seat who has shown the most commitment to the principles underlying my agenda of Illinois or some other similar BS, and everyone on the line _knew_ he meant somebody needed to ante up something, or if he simply in retrospect was going to select the person who had raised the most money for him in the past . . . how is that different? It's one of degree. I think Obama essentially tried to say this at the press conference with Daschle.

This was the most blatantly bizarre to me in the "conviction" of Siegelman, who wasn't even doing the usual quid pro quo post-campaign ante-ing up, but it's done EVERYWHERE.

Yes, I'm glad Fitz stopped it before they had an explicit case with a new senator, I guess, and Blago is a pathologically selfish megalomaniac, but does this mean there's going to be a new law against handing out ambassadorships?

And of course, I'm only speaking in the context of your average corruption--not soaring new heights of corruption of the Bush administration. I'm just kind of sick of the self-righteous outrage at this guy for behaving the way many of them do, albeit more subtly.

[Better Believe It]

9. They seem to be more angry with how he did it than what he did!

Not very sophisticated. He operated like a stupid political rookie.

[rebel with a cause]

11. I agree with your assessment of the situation

and would like to add that I am sick of the comments made about Illinois, as if this is the only state that has had and have a crooked politician.

As everyone probably already knows (because I say it so much) I am from the southern part of the state, almost as far as you can get from Chicago and still be in the state. (328.38 miles) There are a few towns farther south, but not much further. (373.81 miles from Chicago is about the furthest) Anyway, people down here know very little about what goes on in Chicago. Most of us liked Blago because he came across as being liberal and for the working people. We heard some of the rumors but was unsure of what was really what in the political world of Chicago. We have heard of the Chicago political machine but do not know who or what makes it up. I personally thank God for Chicago because it keeps the state blue but hate the fact that hold so much power over the state itself.

From what I have read in the last few days is that the truth about those politicians from Chicago is that some of them are part of the machine and part are not. The three men mentioned by Barack the other day had one such man listed and that was Paul Douglas. Like Obama he was not originally from Chicago but moved there as an adult to teach at the University of Chicago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Douglas) I would compare Obama to Douglas and I hope I am right.

The other two men mentioned by Obama are from the southern part of the state: Paul Simon and Dick Durbin. (Simon came to Illinois as a young man and Durbin was born here) Both of these men were friends with Paul Douglas, and both Douglas and Simon mentored Durbin with Durbin moving from the congress to the Senate when Simon retired. All three of these men are what I would consider civil servants, and I am proud to have/had them represent my state. Both Durbin and Simon have been professors at Southern Illinois University. So Illinoisans walk proud, we may have some crooked governors in our history but at least we were honest enough to put them in prison. There are a lot of other states out there who have just as many and they have never brought them to justice. JMHO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Durbin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Simon_(politician)

[varkam]

13. Seems the author has more of a bone to pick with Fitz than anything.

JMO