The Squabble over Subpoenas in Springfield
When Blagojevich’s lawyer threatened to subpoena Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett last week, it made a lot of sense. By causing the Obama team ongoing distraction, it would have allowed Blago to exact a price from Illinois Democrats aiming to oust him. And it would allow Blago’s lawyer, Edward Genson, to see some of the evidence not shown in Obama’s selective report last week (for example, the content of other conversations between Valerie Jarrett and Tom Balanoff, one of which may be referenced in the complaint yet unmentioned in the Obama report).
Sadly for Blago, though, he’s going to be unable to force Rahm and Jarrett to testify. Fitz sent the legislative committee a letter requesting that Rahm, Jarrett, Jesse Jackson Jr., and Nils Larsen (the Financial Advisor advising Sam Zell on the Wrigley Field stuff) not be subpoenaed.
You have inquired whether prospective testimony by Valerie Jarrett, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., Congressman Rahm Emanuel, and Nils Larsen before the Special Investigative Committee would interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation into the activities of Governor Rod Blagojevich and others. Our understanding is that counsel for Governor Blagojevich has asked the Committee to issue subpoenas requiring the testimony of those individuals on Monday, December 29, 2008.
Consistent with our letter of December 22, 2008, we believe that testimony before your Committee by any witness, including the four named above, concerning the subject matter of the ongoing criminal investigation, could significantly compromise that investigation. The impact of such testimony on the criminal investigation would be the same regardless of whether a witness is called by the Committee or by Governor Blagojevich. Accordingly, we ask that the Committee refrain from issuing subpoenas for testimony by those four individuals (or others) which would overlap with the subject matter of the pending criminal investigation.
The committee has made it clear it will comply with Fitz’s request.
Now, I think it would be a mistake to read too much into Fitz’s request. After all, he’s unlikely to want to pick and choose (for example, if he said "you can subpoena JJJ but not Larsen"), as that selection, by itself, would signal which witnesses he wanted to withhold. And Fitz is notoriously reluctant to show his cards before his time.
Also note Fitz’s wording. This was misrepresented in some of the coverage of this, suggesting that Fitz had asked the committee not to subpoena those "mentioned" in the complaint; he describes these four as simply those who have "testimony [that] would overlap with the subject matter of the pending criminal invstigation." But in fact, Fitz does not suggest that these four are mentioned in the complaint (which would have confirmed that Rahm is the Advisor named in the complaint and other details that have been all-but-confirmed in the press).
Fitz is only willing to say that these witnesses would offer testimony "overlapping" with the subject matter of the investigation.
That said, I would suggest that this might mean that Rahm has more to say than is obvious from last week’s report. After all, unlike Jarrett (who was told Blago wanted HHS) and Larsen (whom Blago believed knew that the Trib would get help on the Wrigley deal in exchange for firing reporters) and JJJ (who had a direct conversation about the seat after Blago talked about getting money for the seat), Rahm had no conversation with Blago or Harris in which an item of "personal benefit" to Blago came up (though the report itself addresses just the Senate seat discussions, I think this is categorical enough to cover all conversations with Blago and Harris, though not enough to cover conversations with John Wyma, whom Blago asked to carry a quid pro quo offer to Rahm).
Mr. Emanuel and the Governor did not discuss a cabinet position, 501c(4), a private sector position for the Governor or any other personal benefit for the Governor.
[snip]
Mr. Harris did not make any effort to extract a personal benefit for the Governor in any of these conversations. There was no discussion of a cabinet position, of 501c(4), of a private sector position or of any other personal benefit to the Governor in exchange for the Senate appointment.
Just as likely, of course, Fitz doesn’t want the President-elect’s Chief of Staff to say Blago said nothing incriminating.
In any case, given the committee’s willingness to accede to Fitz’s request, we’re unlikely to find out anytime soon.
Guess the Illinois legislature is going to have to impeach Blago simply because he smells bad.
I wonder if this makes it more likely that Blagojevich will appoint somebody to Obama’s vacant Senate seat just to be a spoilsport.
And if he appoints someone ”respectable”, even someone Republican, is that going to make Harry Reid’s head spin? *g*
Fitz has effectively thrown a shit covered monkey wrench in Illinois politics and representation in the Senate, not to mention the effect on moving more swiftly in the Senate with our myriad of problems . First he throws a wrench in Blagos ability to appoint a Senator, all be it a sullied one, after Fitz’s news conference. Then Fitz causes Obama to delay his internal investigation and Illinois impeachment proceeding in the Illinois house. What did Blago do that is worth this size a cluster fuck. Hope it’s spectacular!
Well, responding to your question about what was it that Blago did that was so bad, answer me this:
I’d say that qualifies as “pretty bad”. And, as you are aware, that’s not all Blago’s accused of having done.
How would we know the answer to this?
like anybody could answer that ???
when is the last time a governor GOT CAUGHT …
that’s the question
face it, the blagoff is being prosecuted for criminal stupidity
one thing I never see mentioned: couldn’t the guy be temporarily recused or something like that ??? I remember when Jerry Brown was governor in Cali, and the lt gov was always usurping power whenever Jerry was out of the State for more than 24 hours (or something like that)
What’s your guess, EW?
Fitz holds all the cards until he gets indictments?
or, tries to hold the cards until a trial? Jeez, can’t imaging that one!
Is Debra Bonamici still working in the VII circuit shop?
Does Blago have any rights in an impeachment hearing? I realize he’s not technically a defendant, but, if this were a trial, it could work for him that witnesses he wanted to call were made unavailable. He could even get off. Here, it messes up the impeachment, but it goes forward anyway?
It is certainly not unethical, but it is unsavory in a way for a Federal prosecutor to be working to deny a fair hearing to Blago in one forum just to protect his supposed position in another. Unavoidable I suppose, but, nevertheless regrettable. For what it is worth, I think Blago should have the right to subpoena anybody directly involved in the allegations against him in the impeachment case. His is going to be denied this. And Fitz is poking a lot of those buttons. Lastly, the one reason I kind of harp on this is that, unless Illinois has some pretty slick provisions I am unaware of, there is likely not going to be an effective appeal or review of the legislature’s bad decision here; an impeachment is an extra-judicial proceeding and is subject to extremely limited review normally.
Since an impeachment is a political vs judicial proceeding, it may be the sense of the House to impeach because Blago is so compromised as to be totally ineffective as Governor, and remove him without impinging on Fitzs fiasco.
I disagree, for two reasons:
1. We have not been made aware of there being any timeline, let alone urgency, in the Illinois House relative to the impeachment proceeding.
2. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal or judicial one. In theory, a sitting governor can be impeached for spitting on the sidewalk or just having bad hair – if enough state representatives and state senators vote in favor, he’s gone. We are just accustomed to the (rare) cases of impeachment having resulted (excepting WJC’s) from criminal convictions. Those are the “easy” cases – guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The political cases are the hard, contentious ones.
The governor can fight the impeachment through all the means of politics which he might deem available, and which he might want to use. He’s trying to use the impeachment process to work against the criminal prosecution, and that’s what Fitz is defending against. He’s wholly within his rights there.
Oh, he is within his rights, I think I admitted that. And I have no problem whatsoever with the Illinois legislature proceeding with impeachment. I do, however, have a problem with them doing it on grounds upon which they deny Blago the ability to confront and cross-examine evidence against him and call and present evidence that may tend to exculpate him. If the acts involving the witnesses Fitzgerald listed are within the impeachment proceedings, then Blago should be able to call them.
where does it say you gotta give an impeached person a fair trial ???
(seriously, are there ANY rules in an impeachment that a legislative body is bound to uphold, other than the vote requirement ???)
I always though there ain’t no rules in an impeachment. It’s not like we’re dealing with “The America’s Cup”* or something. Nobody said it had to be fair …
*The NY State Supreme Court once ruled that “In Defending the America’s Cup, fairness matters
HUH? Wha? First, the post is terribly confusing – is that quote from a Fitzgerald prosecutor? If it is, it has been perfectly represented in the press and you just don’t get it.
Not a lawyer, are you?
The lady wrote a book about Fitzgerald and the Libby case and does a better job than the vast majority of lawyers in analyzing what he’s doing, why and how.
And I say that as a lawyer myself.
It would seem the only confusion, that about which you complain, lies somewhere between your computer screen, your eyes, and your fingers typing about how confused you are.
Ya left out the between the ears space……
Assuming that for our new friend the confusing data moves at the speed of light along the pathway described, that friend can make posts and comments at a reasonable speed.
Adding the vacant space you describe to the pathway would leave him literally light-years behind.
Too many Trollhouse cookies, doncha think?
Don’t you dare impugn my favorite Christmastime snack by conflating its name with something else!
I don’t know which quote you refer to by “that quote,” since there are two block quotes in the post – the first one coming straight out of the pdf copy of Fitz’s letter linked just above that quote. (did you know that the blue*(if you’ve changed your browsers settings they may not be blue) highlighted phrases in the posts will bring up a referenced document if you click on them? if not, that could alleviate some confusion) And the second block quote is from the complaint filed by Mr. Fitzgerald
Why am I even bothering here, scribe already did a commendable takedown @ comments 10, 14, and 20; though, I do have to say I miss freepatriot’s takedowns from TNH.
“though, I do have to say I miss freepatriot’s takedowns from TNH”
Me too. This stomachachmutant must look like nice big piece of slightly marble-headed fillet mignon to the freepster. It’s almost tempting enough to poke him with a stick.
Best bouncer on the Toobz, IMHO.
Except when he goes after me k^]
You guys are astounding. I disagree scribe.
Where are you a member of the bar? I look forward to winning against you.
Blago is clearly trying to use good old Chicago lawyering – make it as uncomfortable as possible on the other side and use every leverage you have. If you truly are a lawyer scribe, you know well that it is about leverage, not truth.
As for the characterization of Fitz, she is wrong.
They let you out from under your bridge?
You do know that Our Hostess is in fact an expert on Fitz and his maneuverings? And that there’s no requirement for such an expert to be a lawyer? (For that matter, look at all the stock-market guys who are non-expert even with degrees in business. A degree may demonstrate competence in a field, but frequently it’s a piece of paper certifying only that you took classes.)
Or that your parents could afford to pay to keep you from living at home for 4 years!
I am a member of the bar for about 20 years. I try cases. I win. I may already have kicked your ass in a courtroom (assuming you really are a lawyer). Better than that, I may do it (well, not tomorrow, since I’m not going to court tomorrow) in the future, in which event all you will know is that I left your case a smoking ruin and you’re still standing there trying to figure out what happened and how.
I don’t say where I am a member, nor where I am located, nor a lot of other information about myself, because I like my pseudonymity. Moreover, it keeps the discussion impersonal and directed solely at facts and principles. When trolls show up and try to make trouble, the
firstsecond thing they do* is try to find out where the people they are trying to goad into a fight live, work, whatever. Something personal. I guess it gives them a sense that they can reach out and touch me or leave me feeling threatened that they might, or that they might pass my name on to someone who might. On more levels than I can quickly count, that’s a bad, wrongheaded idea, pal.So, if that’s how you want to play, friend, you’ll soon find that around here it’s very lonely for people like you.
Please be guided accordingly.
–
* The first being the on-line equivalent of striding into the middle of a barroom and announcing they want to fight. Someone, anyone.
Daymn, scribe!
You done gone and woke me up with fireworks! This could make for an interesting evening. *g*
“As for the characterization of Fitz, she is wrong.”
The rule is as simple as gradeschool: show your work. You may turn out to be correct in this assertion, but, as before the bar, opinion without evidence is worthless.
hey dickhead
yeah YOU
in about 5 minutes, you’re gonna get to deal with me, and ONLY ME, around here
and I don’t play nice with troll shit like you
if you want the rest of the community to respond, ya better get an attitude adjustment real fuckin fast, pal
so pull your head out of your ass
before your ass belongs to me
Two trolls before new years, santa likes me, he really really likes me …
Not all lawyers are assholes.
Thanks, and well done!
FWIW, does it seem to anyone else like the Blago threads get kind of hopped on by Rovian trolls, as if making a hubbub about things Blago-related will somehow leak over into the notion that DoJ is a problem?
It’s as if these clowns continue to use the same lowlife meme — remember….I think around Sept 2006 when Fitz was closing in on the Plame biz and all of a sudden there was this flare of teevee yakkers** trying to make Fitz appear to be the problem — the ‘overzealous prosecutor’ meme?
Looks like these trolls are using retread arguments to suck energy into Blago.
Meanwhile, Israel bombs Gaza and
BushCheneyThe UnocalTexacoExxon and Halliburton admin ‘ink a deal’ with Soviet Russia. What else is happening that they want to distract us from…? Apart from smearing Holder in order to delay his ability to make DoJ function, what else are they trying to achieve?** Yeah, thanks to Crooks&Liars I saw quite a few of those clips.
dude was bein a dick on the Grey Lady thread too
I’m thinkin he belongs to me …
any objections ???
All in favor? Any opposed?
Let the record reflect unanimity.
None whatsoever.
I see that LD @32 has already recorded the vote.
Don’t let me slow you down ;>]
And just to remind everyone, once fp takes over, the rest of us clear the field. That means nobody else responds to the troll. You wouldn’t try to help Dali paint a picture, would you?
fp, you got’em!!
BTW, please don’t get mad at me. You are a living example that the pen is mightier, etc.
He’s all yours.
Somatic Hypermutation:
That’s a pretty good nym for a pretend lawyer.
and vise versa …
But I am.
Don’t over indulge!
sheesh. It looks like I missed all the fun. Oh wait – no I didn’t.
is there some controversy about this sentence ???
what’s so hard to understand ???
four people named previously in the letter are among ALL THE WITNESSES, and Fitz don’t want ANY witness to testify anywhere else (like that’s a surprise)
I didn’t see the word “Complaint” in the quote
so maybe the journalists are just makin shit up ???
Paging Captain Renault …
I’m thinking that Fitz and every other USA works damn hard to avoid any “Ollie North” like situations. So Fitz’ position isn’t unusual
and I’m not convinced that Impeachments are supposed to be “Fair” anyway
I always thought of Impeachment as a democratic defenestration of sorts
and who looks for fairness or reason in a mob of pissed off peasants ???
Last post was over 8 hours ago…launch a freepatriot missle and everyone runs for cover!
I’m with the group that says this is perfectly normal. Fitz response was predictable, any prosecutor worth his salary would have done the same thing.
Ill is in trouble, though. Blago won’t step aside, you can’t really impeach him without giving him a chance to defend himself and that means calling witnesses. I think that another run at the Ill Supreme Court is the best bet, since blago is innocent until proven guilty but it is clear that he can’t function in the position until this is resolved.
Boxturtle (Leave with pay is designed for situtations like this)
But I would guess that a state level impeachment is pretty much the same as a national level one; a political solution. Yes there are witnesses and factual testimony but it does not require a “unanimous verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.’ As someone upthread mentioned, it requires (and not an Illinois constitutional scholar so guessing at this)) most likely a majority of the Illinois House to say “yes, let’s impeach Blago” and a two-thirds vote of the state senate to convict and remove him from office.
Just as with the Nixon impeachment hearings long ago, I’m thinking there is probably enough verified information on Blago already in the public domain to justify things. The testimony of the Fitz witnesses are just icing on the cake if you will.
And although the standard of “innocent until proven guilty” is the law and in affect for Fitz and the US Federal Court, that standard does not apply to an impeachment by the Illinois House and conviction by the state senate.
New Firedoglake masthead:
Maestro: Jane Hamster
Time Line Specialist: Emptywheel
Barrister-in-Coach: Bmaz
Troll Exterminator: Freepatriot
I don’t see how Blago is hurt too badly by this. Fitz is basically saying: “If you want to impeach him, you can’t use any of the evidence that I’ve got.” So what ARE they going to use?
Who it hurts, is Obama, because to some extent, Emanuel is still twisting in the wind. And I’ll go so far as to say that Jarrett, despite her quick bailout when she found out that Fitz had taped Emanuel’s call(s) pushing her for the seat, may get some of the tar if Emanuel did any bargaining with Blago.
We also have the Chicago Sun-Times claiming that Emanuel asked Blago to appoint a seat-warmer to his House seat, so that if Rahm wanted it back after two years, the appointee would not run again. The Sun-Times is a conservative paper, but if they’ve got this right, then Emanuel was asking Blago for ANOTHER favor, this time, for himself, and supposedly offering nothing in return. Which aint how the game is played. Particularly, in Chicago.
This is not over yet.
I should have said, it also hurts the Illinois dems, since it looks like they don’t have the ammo to go after Blago, and the longer this drags out with that seat empty, the better a special election will look, especially, to the voters.
The dems in IL could very easily take Obamas seat out of the controversy.
A caucus of the dems could make a reccomendation that Blago could then endorse eradicating all taint.
Dunno…the GOP would have no problem tarring ALL the Dems with the same brush. Make it look like Blago did an end-around with his Dem friends at the legislature. The GOPs only chance is the special election, and my impression is they could well win that by hanging Blago around the neck of whomever runs.
It’s not beyond thought that Blago is holding that over the heads of the Dems at a national level. You don’t cover for me, there’ll be another GOP seat in the senate. And maybe one in the house.
Boxturtle (Blago would probably love an “I’ll go away if You’ll go away” deal)
That being the case the only option would be a special election. Let the GOP change their constitution as they did in Alaska. Meanwhile, the rules are that the gov names the replacement. Since Blago has lost all his creds let him ratify the decision of others. Screw the GOP
Mike, what recommendation would they make?
Decide on a person to take the senate seat. Blago would then merely sign what the caucus decides. Sort of like acting like grownups
Also, who would WANT Blago’s anointment, now?
and, BoxTurtle is right; every day that this hangs around, if it goes to a special election, the GOP’s chances get better.
Enough “…verified information in the public domain…” to impeach Blago?
I haven’t seen that. Anybody Got any links?
The more I think about this the more I wonder if the prosecution of the sale of the Senate seat aspect of this isn’t wrong-headed.
If I had been the judge considering the wiretap authorization in late October of Blago’s phone, there is a damn good chance it would have been denied.
It’s all a crock. Basically, Fitz is trying to avoid a public “pre-trial” in a state impeachment hearing. The testimony could be taken in secret deposition by a committee investigator. That would not interfere directly with the federal investigation at all…unless some of the folks on the impeachment hearing itself are under investigation by the fed. Seriously, if there are reasons to impeach a sitting governor, they should be explored ASAP, not a year from now. The logic is similar to taking “impeachment is off the table”.
Mike, I think even a Blago signature would be toxic. The repubs would still puree the dems over it. And he would still be guv. He needs to be gone, and let the Lt. Gov. make the appointment (under 10′000 watt Kleig-lights :o) ) but getting him gone is looking tougher all the time.
I also agree with Timbo, there are ways around the problem of testimony before the legislature damaging Fitz’s case.
Plus, Fitz’s office knows perfectly well that Emanuel is twisting in the wind some, and Obama along with him. He could release a statement that Emanuel was Ollie-Ollie-in-free as far as ANY bargaining with Blago goes, and I don’t see how THAT would hurt his investigation. That he hasn’t done it, is worrisome, to me.
Lastly, I’m not as much into the Saint Patrick mindset as some. He could have laid about him with the Libby-whip better than he did, and he is, after all, a republican.
I thought I was the only person on this site that believed Fitz was a mere mortal.
He’s defiantly getting a little tarnish on that halo
Hey, bmaz, I don’t think you’re going to like this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..oAqBmuGL8C
Dec. 29 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is seeking to release portions of recordings made in the criminal probe of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to a panel of state lawmakers considering his impeachment.
Four intercepted calls in redacted form should be released to the impeachment committee, prosecutors said in a filing today in federal court in Chicago.
If true, this is complete bullshit. Fitz should not be selectively releasing cherry picked little tidbits to influence the parallel impeachment proceeding. Either release the evidence and the witnesses, or shut the hell up and stay out of it. As I said yesterday, this is unsavory, at best.
off topic comment
if I could have spelled Guernica, I woulda said something about this last night
turns out, somebody said it for me
11 – I agree bmaz.
44/45 – some good points
You have a situation where the legislature is left to either do nothing bc it has chosen to go along with the Prosecutor’s request that they not access any of his evidence or witnesses, so they have nothing to go forward with – – or you say you have a comfort level with politicized prosecutions starting off with highly public pressers and legislatures just jumping on board to impeach from the emotions stirred by those pressers. I understand the issue and there’s certainly a lot to flag a prosecutor to take a very cautious route, but part of the problem was how far he went in the press conf and there are accomodations that could be made on witnesses and evidence for the legislature. It’s also just one more in what seem to be some pretty unbroken chains of legislatures, state and national, basically being subsumed as a lesser wing of the federal Exec. Creeps me out some
It’s not an easy situation, but I’d rather not see the legislature acting like lapdogs, even if people are less concerned about politicizing and trying cases in the media when Fitzgerald’s name is attached to the event. I guess on this one, it’s just so easy to feel like Blagojevich is guilty as sin – so who cares?
On the greater scale of things, I guess Blago’s loss of access to witnesses isn’t going to make me lose sleep.
Right. I could give a fuck about Blago; but the manipulation of parallel proceedings like this just bugs the hell out of me. And it is not all just about the impeachment process either, it is contaminating the potential criminal case jury pool in the process.
does it have a name, ala “greymail” ???
I think blagoff is just as guilty as fitz here
the only difference is that blagoff has the right
Fitz works for us, and I believe the Bar has some guidelines about “Ethical Behavior”
does fitz realize that his making blaggoff look like a sympathetic figure is a sign of a major fuckup ???
“…does Fitz realize that his making Blago look like a sympathetic figure is the sign of a major fuckup???”
Uhhh…I’d say, sorta-kinda. The problem is, that what’s on those tapes; the nuances of Emanuel’s conversations, in particular, is very much in play, media-wise. And with Fitz now offering to cherry-pick them (with what appears to be the clear intention of helping the committee dealing with the possible impeachment of Blago, get on with it…) it’s hard to keep that halo bright and shiny.
There are so many angles to this, and so many agendas, that it’s hard to decide just what has “priority”. I think there have already been snippets of it leaked, or maybe, released, and that’s what the legislature based that 113-zip vote on.
My personal 2c is this: I think Emanuel bargained a little with Blago. Probably not directly enough to be indictable (Hell, is BLAGO indictable? We don’t even know that, yet.) but enough that, if that comes out, he needs to be inspecting transaxles on GrayDogs, instead of running Obama’s staff. I understand that we don’t want Obama tarred with this, but Emanuel is not what you’d call a rockin’ progressive, who went to bat for us in the tough times. I don’t think that Obama should spend much capital, if any, protecting him. Push come to shove, it shouldn’t be hard to find an upgrade. :o)
I also think that Jarrett’s rather timely withdrawal of her name for consideration for the seat had nothing to do with her suddenly discovering that she’d rather be on Obama’s staff than sitting in the Senate, but was a perfectly reasonable reaction to the clear implication (as soon as she found out Emanuel’s conversations with Blago were taped) that if she wanted to have a chance to be in Obama’s administration she had better put as much distance between herself and the “auction” as possible. Which is probably why she, herself, wouldn’t speak to Greg Craig, Obama’s White House counsel, in his internal investigation, but instead, had her lawyer do it.
There is a huge time factor in all this. If Emanuel did do some dickering with Blago, he’s probably gone. My feeling is, strongly, that it will be a lot less damaging to have that happen now, rather than a month from now. I think the smart republicans (such as they are…:o) ) are perfectly willing to have this strung out until we’re in the middle of confirmation hearings for Obama’s nominations, when the fact that Obama’s nomination for A.G. played fast and loose with the truth about how hard he worked to get Bubba to pardon Marc Rich.
I’ve been saying for some time now, that Obama is going to have more shit on his plate to deal with than any president since Lincoln. Given Bush’s scintillating mid-east successes, including the Israeli blitzkreig in Gaza, it isn’t getting any easier.
if that’s the case, the “smart” repuglitards got fucked by presnit bunnypants and a dude with a dead squirrel on his head …
repuglitards wanna talk about Holder and Marc Rich ???
Subpoena kkkarl rove, and let him splain the difference between toussie and rich
the repuglitards like political theater ???
subpoena presnit bunny pants, and let HIM splain what the fuck he was doing
imagine a little conversation:
now ain’t the time to play the blame game ???
why the FUCK are we talking about holder then ???
you can see where I’m goin here ???
everything kkkarl serves up can be exploded in his fat fucking face
the people of America have a right to answers mister rove ???
you are PERFECTY RIGHT mister rove, here’s the book, step up, take the oath, and give America some answers
if we do this right, the very PHRASE “I’ve got some questions” will make every repuglitard who hears it SHIT HIS PANTS
we don’t have to ask the repuglitards for permission to issue a single fucking subpoena
I’m thinkin questions ain’t their friends …
Ya know, the problem with this country is that we’d rather have the political and legal uncertainty of having no investigations and no impeachments and always deferring to whatever one branch of government or the other wants…um, actually, what the executive branch wants when you really look at it…rather than, you know, have multiple investigations occur simultaneously that might converge and drown the rats before they can sink the ship. The problem is we seem to be unwilling to stop the rats from leaving the ship and they’re gnawing holes in the hull at an alarming rate.
Fitzgerald is given a little more credit than I think he’s due. He’s not above being political. He has certainly done so in this instance. While it might be a courtesy to him to not have subpoenaed testimony, public or private, the fact that the Illinois Legislature is not moving quickly forward towards getting that testimony shows a deferring to party hackery rather towards getting at the truth of these allegations. If a crime has occurred, why isn’t the legislature moving forward full steam to impeach the governor? It’s very simple. If he’s a criminal, guilty of trying to sell a U.S. Senate seat for remuneration, he should be impeached and removed…not coddled till the US Attorney can get around to it. Seriously, the weak-kneed morality of this country is coming home to roost big time. No one wants to take responsibility for cleaning up the mess and they want to defer it as long as possible to avoid “unforseen political consequences”?! WTF is wrong with this country?!
Answer: deferment of responsibility. Period. That’s it gentlemen. The lights will go out soon if some folks don’t step up and clean this political “system” up.