Legal Hurdle in Blagojevich Case: A Crime, or Just Talk?

[BlueJessamine]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — When Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago, announced the arrest of the Illinois governor, Rod R. Blagojevich, Mr. Fitzgerald said he had acted to halt a political crime spree that included what he called an “appalling” effort to sell off the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

But now some lawyers are beginning to suggest that the juiciest part of the case against Mr. Blagojevich, the part involving the Senate seat, may be less than airtight. There is no evidence, at least none that has been disclosed, that the governor actually received anything of value — and the Senate appointment has yet to be made.

Ever since the country’s founding, prosecutors, defense lawyers and juries have been trying to define the difference between criminality and political deal-making. They have never established a clear-cut line between the offensive and the illegal, and the hours of wiretapped conversations involving Mr. Blagojevich, filled with crass, profane talk about benefiting from the Senate vacancy, may fall into a legal gray area.

Robert S. Bennett, one of Washington’s best-known white-collar criminal defense lawyers, said Mr. Blagojevich faced nearly insurmountable legal problems in a case that includes a raft of corruption accusations unrelated to Mr. Obama’s Senate seat. But Mr. Bennett said the case raised some potentially thorny issues about political corruption.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/us/politics/16legal.html?_r=1&hp

[unkachuck]

1. Blago is still govenor....

....Blago can still appoint the next Senator....the Dems in the Illinois General Assembly should appoint a squeaky-clean blue-ribbon panel to come up with a squeaky-clean Dem nominee....Blago then agrees to appoint their recommendation....

....we're all Dems, can't we get along?

[tritsofme]

2. There aren't enough sqeaky clean politicians in Illinois for your committee.

Blago isn't interested in helping out in any way.

The Senate isn't interested in anyone Blago sends their way.

[murielm99]

9. Yes there are.

Some of them might even live in Chicago.

There are good elected officials in the Quad City area and further downstate. There are good state reps, and mayors of large and medium sized towns to consider, if only in an advisory role. If this is going to be a bipartisan effort, look for some Southern Illinois legislators.

It seems that the closer anyone gets to the governor's office, the dirtier he becomes. It happens in both parties. I am convinced that it is more than just the individual. There is something wrong with the system. We need to make some fundamental changes to the system in Illinois. Don't ask me for specifics. I don't know. I don't know where to begin.

[dothemath]

3. I thought Fitzgerald was reasonably intelligent ...........

Key points: No price quoted, no money changed hands, the only parties mentioned who can be identified are people connected with Obama - and there is apparently no 'smoking gun' conversation in that connection.

Nothing illegal was done. Stupid? Oh, boy. In spades, to be sure.

I think Fitzgerald has an agenda that, as yet, has not been identified. We may never know. But, he is a loose cannon with enormous power - and that should be enough to scare the crap out of a politician.

If I were a politician, I would be wired 24 hours/day. Every word uttered by me and anyone with whom I spoke would be recorded. Can you spell Nixon? All you have to do when a lapse occurs and you involve yourself in an illegal act is say
"but that would be wrong".

I hereby demand that every person who expressed an interest in who should be appointed to an unfilled elected position ............ hire a lawyer.

[No Elephants]

13. "but that would be wrong" That's essentially what Murtha said and it did not help him.

[CK_John]

4. He knew he was tapped, was he playing to the mike or he that stupid? n/t

[Still Sensible]

5. Even if the Senate seat issue falls away...

It would seem the threat/attempt to redirect hospital funds because the expected payoff had not yet materialized sure seems pretty air tight. The tapes clearly have him admitting he pushed through those funds based on a quid pro quo. It would be tough for him to squirm out of that, I think.

The Senate seat issue, however, could prove to have enough evidence of an ongoing conspiracy. I am admittedly no attorney, but it seems to me I have read about conspiracy cases that have been won with he said/he said testimony that seems less than the tape evidence referenced in the USAT filing.

[stillcool]

6. but did he? Is there a hospital CEO...

that has said that he was pressured to donate in exchange for funding? Did the hospital get the funding without the contribution? The "Can I count on your support" that goes with the awarding of contracts is the way politics works. Nothing for nothing. Just like expecting to be re-elected for providing for your community, state. I'm not sure if what Blago said is as damning as the way he said it.

[Piewhacket]

7. Disinformation...

the line isn't fuzzy, and you don't need to actually get
any money to be guilty of ATTEMPTING TO SOLICIT a bribe.

did he attempt to solicit a bribe?
there's the question.

[IsItJustMe]

8. All politicians make deals. It's sleezy but it is what it is. Where the line is, who knows? Seems

like lots of people think they know though and that is good on them. But I don't.

[Piewhacket]

10. anyone who doesn't know where the line...

between public service and public corruption,
should not enter politics unless they have
excellent legal advice, (or a good criminal defense lawyer).

for example, a judge who 'fixes' parking tickets for
cash is public servant... unless he puts some of the money
in his own pocket.

are you sure you don't know where the "line" is?

[trayfoot]

11. Why can't the Senate seat part of the accusations be considered

conspiracy to commit crime???

[Johonny]

12. Why do I picture Dan Akroyd playing Nixon

from that old SNL skit. Listen there are lawyers who's job it is to put people in prison and lawyers who's job it is to keep people out of prison. Naturally there are some lawyers that want to cast doubt on the evidence (of which we probably haven't heard all of). Until it's in court just hit the ignore button on "expert" talk because they don't know.