(Fox News)
"Heigh ho, heigh ho
It's off to jail I go"
Convicted on 17 of 20 counts including the most serious of trying to sell Obama's vacated senate seat to the highest bidder, ex-governor Rod Blagojevich gets ready to join his predecessor in the governor's seat, George Ryan, in prison.
So what is the big-mouth, trash talking Blago going to do now? If he's smart (which he isn't) he will make a deal with the government to talk about all his dirty associations with people like Tony Rezko and others.........
Problem is that it's not for certain that the Justice Department.......
......is really interested in making such a deal. Remember how the Clinton Justice Department under Janet Reno handled the John Huang case; plead guilty, probation, community service, pay a fine and that's it. Talk about his connections? Forget it.
Anyone who knows anything about conspiracy law can tell you that it is time for the prosecutors to sit down with Blago and his attorney for some serious discussions. Let's see what transpires-or doesn't.
8 comments:
"Drain the Swamp"
Squid
Worthy of the National Inquirer, Gary.
First, you insinuate that because the senate seat Blago tried to sell had been vacated by the newly elected President of the United States, therefore the previous senator, Barack Obama, is complicit in a pitch for funds that he had nothing to do with and no control over. (Newly elected presidents do NOT get to vet who a governor appoints to replace them).
Then, you insinuate that Barack Obama is going to somehow pardon the governor. Aside from there being no evidence he is considering anything of the kind, he is far too seasoned and hard-boiled a politician to taint himself openly with anything of the kind.
Try again, you're slipping.
To say I insinuated that Obama parden Blago is a stretch. I don't think you followed the case too closely. There was a push to have Blago name Jarrett as senator. Obviously there were discussions of what Blago would get in return.
All true Gary, but what does your reference to presidential pardons, past present or future, have to do with that???
OK, I looked again. You didn't talk about pardons, you talked about whether Blago would be milked for names of his accomplices, real or imagined.
I am somewhat of an expert on the impact of conspiracy law on innocent families. There is absolutely no reason that a convicted defendant should have the slightest concern for whether they provide truthful information or concocted lies. Either one gets him or her something close to a free pass.
Blago has ZERO credibility as a witness against anyone at this point. Further, it doesn't take a co-conspirator, other than a candidate for the vacant office, to facilitate his crime.
You are correct. Blago's credibility as a witness would be very low--unless the govt corroborates virtually everything he testifies to. That is the basic rule when you have an informant or cooperating co-conspirator testify. Matter of fact, the judge will instruct the jury to consider such testimony with great reservation-unless it is corroborated by independent evidence.
That's simply untrue Gary. Innocent Americans get convicted all the time on nothing BUT the word of a known felon who tells the cops something he thinks will get him a substantial cut in his sentence. The real kingpins have this down to a fine art: they PLAN for which sucker will take the fall and get the life sentence, while the real master minds get a couple of years as cooperative witnesses.
"That's simply untrue Gary. Innocent Americans get convicted all the time on nothing BUT the word of a known felon who tells the cops something he thinks will get him a substantial cut in his sentence."
Siarlys,
You have made an absurd statement. I guess you have watched too much TV. Take the word of one who was involved in these things for 25 years. When ba "known felon" or other cooperating defendant or informant tells us anything, it MUST be corroborated. No prosecutor would prosecutor anybody based on the testimiony of one bad guy with no corroboration.
Do you really think investigators and prosecutors want to prosecute someone innocent?
Final point: When deals are made for one to cooperate or testify the goal is to go up the ladder (get a bigger fish) not a smaller fish. It is true that in large conspiracy cases (Mafia etc), it may be wise to try and dlip one close to the top-who can give you those above and know most if not all of the operation. That can also involve some lower, but the goal is always to get to higher ups.
Your statement shows true ignorance of our legal system.
Post a Comment